| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Dianelos Georgoudis" |
| Date: |
11 Feb 2006 03:29:15 AM |
| Object: |
bad bad definition of atheism (was: question) |
Here is a typical exchange in alt.atheism about what atheism is:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In <1139488432.463347.257300@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
mapsapi@hotmail.com wrote:
Heres a question:
[snip]
Atheism isn't about "proving" or "disproving" the existence of anything at
all. Nor does atheism have "conclusions."
Atheism is the state of being without belief in any gods.
I think this is a poor definition for many reasons.
1. It implies that cats, chairs, and corpses are atheists. But one
could explain that atheism only applies to people.
2. Even then, all newborn human babies would be atheists, which flies
against normal speech (good definitions do not do that). Also a theist
might define theism as the lack of belief in the non-existence of some
god, which would make babies both theist and atheist. To escape this
nonsense one could claim that atheism only applies to people capable of
abstract thought.
3. Even with these improvements, the definition retains its defining
characteristic: it bases atheism on the lack of something (namely
belief in the existence of God) rather the presence of something
(namely belief in the non-existence of God), as the older and more
common definitions of atheism have it. Should one deconstruct this it
becomes pretty obvious that a definition of atheism based on the lack
of belief is custom-tailored to avoid debate. See for example the
observation above that "atheism does not have conclusions". This is
incoherent of multiple levels:
a) It evidences intellectual cowardice, when in fact atheists are in
general anything but intellectual cowards.
b) Everybody knows that all people who actually call themselves
atheists have thought about the concept of the existence of gods and
have, in fact, reached some conclusion about this. So this definition
evidences intellectual dishonesty too, when in fact atheists are in
general characterized by intellectual honesty.
Or maybe it's a case of special pleading. After all, gods are not the
only things that may exist or not. People also wonder about the
existence of Santa Claus, of the perpetuum mobile, of the gravitron, of
efficient algorithms to factor numbers, of WMDs in Iraq, and so on. In
all these cases, we all agree, that people who speak about them do
reach some kind of conclusion about their existence (a valid conclusion
can be: I have no idea about whether this exists or not). So, the above
definition of atheism makes a special pleading: that in the case of
gods this normal state of affairs should not apply.
This last incoherence can be clarified on logical grounds too - and
this I think is my strongest objection:
When atheists say that they are atheists (as all posters to alt.atheism
who proudly put some kind of atheist id number in their signature do),
they claim to lack belief in the existence of gods, correct? Well, how
do they know that? They can't know that before understanding the
concept "existence of gods". Because if they don't have some
notion about what this concept means, neither can they know if they
lack or not belief in it. But it is impossible to know what
"existence of gods" means without actually having thought about the
existence of gods, and this thinking must have concluded somewhere.
Therefore it's impossible to know that one lacks belief in the
existence of gods without having reached some kind conclusion.
So, even those declared atheists who insist on the definition of
atheism as lack of belief must a) explain what they mean by existence
of gods, and b) explain what conclusion they have reached while
thinking about the meaning of "existence of gods". In other words
they can't really hide behind that particular definition, so why not
use the more common "atheism means to believe that no gods exist"
and be done with?
Let me formalize this argument:
1. In order to know that one lacks belief in X implies that one knows
what X means. (premise)
2. To know what X means implies that one has thought about X. (premise)
3. Therefore to know that one lacks belief in X implies that one has
thought about X. (from 1 and 2)
4. When one thinks about X one reaches some kind of conclusion about X
(at the very least the conclusion that even though one now knows what X
means one cannot find anything to claim about X). (premise)
5. Therefore to know that one lacks belief in X implies that one has
reached some kind of conclusion about X. (from 3 and 4)
6. In a discussion intellectually honest people must respond to the
best of their ability when asked about their knowledge. (premise)
7. Therefore in a discussion intellectually honest people who know they
lack belief in X must respond to the best of their ability when asked
about their knowledge of the meaning of X. (from 6 and 1)
8. Therefore in a discussion intellectually honest people who know they
lack belief in X must respond to the best of their ability when asked
about what they concluded after thinking about X. (from 6 and 5)
By substituting "X" with "existence of gods" results in this:
In a discussion those intellectually honest people who claim they lack
of belief in the existence of gods must explain what they mean when
they say "existence of gods" and what conclusion they have reached
after thinking about this concept.
In short I find many atheists' insistence in defining atheism as the
lack of something to be a childish trick. If I were an atheist I would
feel embarrassed that so many of my fellow atheists insist on it.
Everybody knows that the definition of atheism as the belief in the
non-existence of gods is the most accurate one. After all I suppose
atheists believe that Santa Claus does not exist, right? Or maybe here
too they just lack belief in the existence of Santa Claus? They believe
that 2+2 does not equal 5, or maybe they only lack this particular
belief too?
Frankly, to speak all the time about how moronic people are who believe
in the existence of gods, or how self-contradictory such beliefs are,
while at the same time coyly proclaiming not to hold any beliefs
themselves about these matters - is a ridiculous stand.
.
|
|
| User: "Rockett Crawford" |
|
| Title: Re: bad bad definition of atheism (was: question) |
11 Feb 2006 08:54:24 AM |
|
|
"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in message
news:1139650155.115357.44860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Here is a typical exchange in alt.atheism about what atheism is:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In <1139488432.463347.257300@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
mapsapi@hotmail.com wrote:
Heres a question:
[snip]
Atheism isn't about "proving" or "disproving" the existence of anything
at
all. Nor does atheism have "conclusions."
Atheism is the state of being without belief in any gods.
I think this is a poor definition for many reasons.
1. It implies that cats, chairs, and corpses are atheists. But one
could explain that atheism only applies to people.
That he is talking about people is implicit.
2. Even then, all newborn human babies would be atheists, which flies
against normal speech (good definitions do not do that).
No it doesn't. Newborns are without belief in just about everything.
Also a theist
might define theism as the lack of belief in the non-existence of some
god, which would make babies both theist and atheist.
Non Sequitar. A lack of belief in the non-exitence of something doesn't
equate to belief in that something.
<snip>
3. Even with these improvements, the definition retains its defining
characteristic: it bases atheism on the lack of something (namely
belief in the existence of God)
No, gods. Using the word "God" is theist bias.
rather the presence of something
(namely belief in the non-existence of God), as the older and more
common definitions of atheism have it.
Should one deconstruct this it
becomes pretty obvious that a definition of atheism based on the lack
of belief is custom-tailored to avoid debate.
Pot calling the kettle black. Most definitons of atheism are
"custom-tailored" by dictionaries to cater to Christians by portraying
atheists as denying that Jehovah exists with the implication that Jehovah
does in fact exist.
See for example the
observation above that "atheism does not have conclusions". This is
incoherent of multiple levels:
a) It evidences intellectual cowardice, when in fact atheists are in
general anything but intellectual cowards.
Strawman. It's not intellectually cowardice to not address something that is
ridiculous or has no evidence to support it.
b) Everybody knows that all people who actually call themselves
atheists have thought about the concept of the existence of gods and
have, in fact, reached some conclusion about this. So this definition
evidences intellectual dishonesty too, when in fact atheists are in
general characterized by intellectual honesty.
Another strawman. Again, bias that gods are important in lives. Religious
people often erroneously project this bias onto others.
Or maybe it's a case of special pleading. After all, gods are not the
only things that may exist or not. People also wonder about the
existence of Santa Claus, of the perpetuum mobile, of the gravitron, of
efficient algorithms to factor numbers, of WMDs in Iraq, and so on. In
all these cases, we all agree, that people who speak about them do
reach some kind of conclusion about their existence (a valid conclusion
can be: I have no idea about whether this exists or not). So, the above
definition of atheism makes a special pleading: that in the case of
gods this normal state of affairs should not apply.
Non Sequitar, just because someone can reach a conclusion doesn't mean they
have or place any value on the subject.
This last incoherence can be clarified on logical grounds too - and
this I think is my strongest objection:
When atheists say that they are atheists (as all posters to alt.atheism
who proudly put some kind of atheist id number in their signature do),
they claim to lack belief in the existence of gods, correct? Well, how
do they know that? They can't know that before understanding the
concept "existence of gods". Because if they don't have some
notion about what this concept means, neither can they know if they
lack or not belief in it.
I can lack belief in the toothfairy even though I completely understand the
concept.
<snip>
So, even those declared atheists who insist on the definition of
atheism as lack of belief must a) explain what they mean by existence
of gods, and b) explain what conclusion they have reached while
thinking about the meaning of "existence of gods". In other words
they can't really hide behind that particular definition, so why not
use the more common "atheism means to believe that no gods exist"
and be done with?
Because that definition is utterly wrong.
For example:
Zeus may exist on the planet Pluto for all I know, so as a discipline, I
can't say I believe he doesn't exist. I can't say if anything does or
doesn't exist outside of my experience or knowledge. This is a basic rule of
science.
Do I believe in Zeus? That's another story. No, I am without belief in Zeus.
I hope that helps to clarify things?
<snip>
Capella a.a #5
150 bible atrocities, bible errors, bible contradictions, pecular Bible
verses, etc...
http://www.goatstar.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dianelos Georgoudis" |
|
| Title: Re: bad bad definition of atheism (was: question) |
13 Feb 2006 01:05:08 AM |
|
|
Rockett Crawford wrote:
"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in message
news:1139650155.115357.44860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Here is a typical exchange in alt.atheism about what atheism is:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In <1139488432.463347.257300@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
mapsapi@hotmail.com wrote:
Heres a question:
[snip]
Atheism isn't about "proving" or "disproving" the existence of anything
at
all. Nor does atheism have "conclusions."
Atheism is the state of being without belief in any gods.
I think this is a poor definition for many reasons.
1. It implies that cats, chairs, and corpses are atheists. But one
could explain that atheism only applies to people.
That he is talking about people is implicit.
Not that implicit. I have known atheists who claim that chairs are
indeed atheist. In any case a good definition is explicit.
2. Even then, all newborn human babies would be atheists, which flies
against normal speech (good definitions do not do that).
No it doesn't. Newborns are without belief in just about everything.
Are you saying that "all newborn babies are atheist" does not fly
against normal speech? Can you imagine an invitation "You are all
invited to our Pastor's house to celebrate the birth of their second
atheist child?"
Also a theist
might define theism as the lack of belief in the non-existence of some
god, which would make babies both theist and atheist.
Non Sequitar. A lack of belief in the non-exitence of something doesn't
equate to belief in that something.
Maybe it doesn't. But theists are free to define theism and
themselves as they wish, no? After all what is good for the goose is
good for the gander. So a theist may think "That's a very good
definition of theism: it characterizes all theists because all of them
do in fact lack belief in the non-existence of some god (namely the one
they believe in), and also allows the theist to escape the need to
justify or explain anything." Theists to their merit play no such
word games.
<snip>
3. Even with these improvements, the definition retains its defining
characteristic: it bases atheism on the lack of something (namely
belief in the existence of God)
No, gods. Using the word "God" is theist bias.
Noted.
rather the presence of something
(namely belief in the non-existence of God), as the older and more
common definitions of atheism have it.
Should one deconstruct this it
becomes pretty obvious that a definition of atheism based on the lack
of belief is custom-tailored to avoid debate.
Pot calling the kettle black. Most definitons of atheism are
"custom-tailored" by dictionaries to cater to Christians by portraying
atheists as denying that Jehovah exists with the implication that Jehovah
does in fact exist.
How does the simple definition "A theist is somebody who believes no
god(s) exist" imply all that?
I am not saying you are totally wrong: I understand some dictionaries
found it appropriate to put "immoral" as one of the definitions of
"atheist". Things are never simple. The authors of these
dictionaries might argue that in colloquial English "atheist" is
sometimes used to mean "immoral" and therefore that inclusion is
valid, as a dictionary should reflect the actual use of a concept.
In any case to believe that there is a Christian conspiracy to belittle
atheism using the dictionaries as a weapon is farfetched. I mean look
how you put it: "Portraying us as denying that X exists has the
implication that X does in fact exist". That's not true. For
example if a dictionary would define a skeptic as someone who denies
the existence of paranormal phenomena, nobody would suggest that the
dictionary implies that paranormal phenomena exist.
I think atheists would do better to relax a little. I mean you have a
good case.
See for example the
observation above that "atheism does not have conclusions". This is
incoherent of multiple levels:
a) It evidences intellectual cowardice, when in fact atheists are in
general anything but intellectual cowards.
Strawman. It's not intellectually cowardice to not address something that is
ridiculous or has no evidence to support it.
That's not what I was addressing, but rather the objective fact (I
could give many references from alt.atheism) that many atheist posters
point at the "lack of belief" definition when asked to give their
reasons for being atheist. This I claim is intellectual cowardice.
b) Everybody knows that all people who actually call themselves
atheists have thought about the concept of the existence of gods and
have, in fact, reached some conclusion about this. So this definition
evidences intellectual dishonesty too, when in fact atheists are in
general characterized by intellectual honesty.
Another strawman. Again, bias that gods are important in lives. Religious
people often erroneously project this bias onto others.
I am not saying anything about the importance of gods. I am saying that
when atheists who have thought about theistic claims and have reached
their conclusions pretend that they haven't - as their definition of
atheism allows them to claim that - those atheists are being
intellectually dishonest. It's really childish. There may be people
out there so ignorant that they really have never considered or thought
about god(s) and therefore have not reached any conclusion about their
existence - but these people clearly are not posting to alt.atheism.
Or maybe it's a case of special pleading. After all, gods are not the
only things that may exist or not. People also wonder about the
existence of Santa Claus, of the perpetuum mobile, of the gravitron, of
efficient algorithms to factor numbers, of WMDs in Iraq, and so on. In
all these cases, we all agree, that people who speak about them do
reach some kind of conclusion about their existence (a valid conclusion
can be: I have no idea about whether this exists or not). So, the above
definition of atheism makes a special pleading: that in the case of
gods this normal state of affairs should not apply.
Non Sequitar, just because someone can reach a conclusion doesn't mean they
have or place any value on the subject.
Where did I say anything about "value"? It seems to me that it's
you who is constantly using non sequitur. Above I claim that in all
other cases people affirm that they believe that something exists, or
that it doesn't, or that they have no idea whether it does or
doesn't. In all other cases people do not say things like "I lack
belief in the existence of something". The fact that atheists do so
in relation of the existence gods is clearly a case of special
pleading. If you don't agree then please explain why you say "I
believe that telepathy does not exist" or "I don't believe that
telepathy exists" but never say "I lack belief in the existence of
telepathy"?
This last incoherence can be clarified on logical grounds too - and
this I think is my strongest objection:
When atheists say that they are atheists (as all posters to alt.atheism
who proudly put some kind of atheist id number in their signature do),
they claim to lack belief in the existence of gods, correct? Well, how
do they know that? They can't know that before understanding the
concept "existence of gods". Because if they don't have some
notion about what this concept means, neither can they know if they
lack or not belief in it.
I can lack belief in the toothfairy even though I completely understand the
concept.
There are many concepts one does not *completely* understand. Actually
I wonder if there is any concept about which one can claim *complete*
understanding. That's not the issue. The issue is that in order to
reasonably claim anything about a concept (such as one lacks belief in
it) one must first have some understanding of it, don't you think? If
you don't can you give some counterexample?
<snip>
So, even those declared atheists who insist on the definition of
atheism as lack of belief must a) explain what they mean by existence
of gods, and b) explain what conclusion they have reached while
thinking about the meaning of "existence of gods". In other words
they can't really hide behind that particular definition, so why not
use the more common "atheism means to believe that no gods exist"
and be done with?
Because that definition is utterly wrong.
For example:
Zeus may exist on the planet Pluto for all I know, so as a discipline, I
can't say I believe he doesn't exist. I can't say if anything does or
doesn't exist outside of my experience or knowledge. This is a basic rule of
science.
Do I believe in Zeus? That's another story. No, I am without belief in Zeus.
If you are saying that you can imagine Zeus existing on Pluto but you
have no information to make up your mind about whether he is there or
not, then you are declaring yourself agnostic in this question. I mean
agnostics can't say if something does or doesn't exist as it's
outside their experience of knowledge - exactly as you put it. But
for agnostics existence and non-existence are symmetrical; they accept
the possibility of both but declare not to have sufficient reason to
believe in either. That's not the atheist position, right? I mean in
the atheist position the balance between existence and non-existence of
gods clearly weights towards non-existence, no? Or are you saying that
atheism and agnosticism mean exactly the same?
I hope that helps to clarify things?
Not really. Above I suggested the definition "atheism means to
believe that no gods exist". You claim that this definition is
utterly wrong, and then produce an example of agnosticism.
150 bible atrocities, bible errors, bible contradictions, pecular Bible
verses, etc...
I noted the above in your signature. Please do not confuse Christianity
with Bibliolatry.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rockett Crawford" |
|
| Title: Re: bad bad definition of atheism (was: question) |
13 Feb 2006 09:46:17 AM |
|
|
"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in message
news:1139814308.113166.258480@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Rockett Crawford wrote:
"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in message
news:1139650155.115357.44860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Here is a typical exchange in alt.atheism about what atheism is:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In <1139488432.463347.257300@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
mapsapi@hotmail.com wrote:
Heres a question:
[snip]
Atheism isn't about "proving" or "disproving" the existence of
anything
at
all. Nor does atheism have "conclusions."
Atheism is the state of being without belief in any gods.
I think this is a poor definition for many reasons.
1. It implies that cats, chairs, and corpses are atheists. But one
could explain that atheism only applies to people.
That he is talking about people is implicit.
Not that implicit. I have known atheists who claim that chairs are
indeed atheist. In any case a good definition is explicit.
A good definition is also not a legal contract.
2. Even then, all newborn human babies would be atheists, which flies
against normal speech (good definitions do not do that).
No it doesn't. Newborns are without belief in just about everything.
Are you saying that "all newborn babies are atheist" does not fly
against normal speech? Can you imagine an invitation "You are all
invited to our Pastor's house to celebrate the birth of their second
atheist child?"
Also a theist
might define theism as the lack of belief in the non-existence of some
god, which would make babies both theist and atheist.
Non Sequitar. A lack of belief in the non-exitence of something doesn't
equate to belief in that something.
Maybe it doesn't. But theists are free to define theism and
themselves as they wish, no? After all what is good for the goose is
good for the gander. So a theist may think "That's a very good
definition of theism: it characterizes all theists because all of them
do in fact lack belief in the non-existence of some god (namely the one
they believe in), and also allows the theist to escape the need to
justify or explain anything." Theists to their merit play no such
word games.
Actually the Christian definition of Atheism is exactly the "word play" you
speak of.
rather the presence of something
(namely belief in the non-existence of God), as the older and more
common definitions of atheism have it.
Should one deconstruct this it
becomes pretty obvious that a definition of atheism based on the lack
of belief is custom-tailored to avoid debate.
Pot calling the kettle black. Most definitons of atheism are
"custom-tailored" by dictionaries to cater to Christians by portraying
atheists as denying that Jehovah exists with the implication that Jehovah
does in fact exist.
How does the simple definition "A theist is somebody who believes no
god(s) exist" imply all that?
I don't think you understood my answer. Please read it again.
I am not saying you are totally wrong: I understand some dictionaries
found it appropriate to put "immoral" as one of the definitions of
"atheist". Things are never simple. The authors of these
dictionaries might argue that in colloquial English "atheist" is
sometimes used to mean "immoral"
Who? By atheists or Christians?
and therefore that inclusion is
valid, as a dictionary should reflect the actual use of a concept.
The usage of the word by intended clientele, not necessarily whether the
usage is accurate.
In any case to believe that there is a Christian conspiracy to belittle
atheism using the dictionaries as a weapon is farfetched. I mean look
how you put it: "Portraying us as denying that X exists has the
implication that X does in fact exist". That's not true. For
example if a dictionary would define a skeptic as someone who denies
the existence of paranormal phenomena, nobody would suggest that the
dictionary implies that paranormal phenomena exist.
Strawman. Paranormal phenomena is abstract. If a dictionary is being peddled
to believers of Jane Doe's psychic abilities and the definition was worded:
peole who deny the existence of Jane Doe's psychic abilities, then we have
something more like apples and apples.
Plus unless the definition includes a context, it is characterizing a
position which is invalid (proof of a negative) so therefore either the
position or the definiton is wrong.
I think atheists would do better to relax a little. I mean you have a
good case.
See for example the
observation above that "atheism does not have conclusions". This is
incoherent of multiple levels:
a) It evidences intellectual cowardice, when in fact atheists are in
general anything but intellectual cowards.
Strawman. It's not intellectually cowardice to not address something that
is
ridiculous or has no evidence to support it.
That's not what I was addressing, but rather the objective fact (I
could give many references from alt.atheism) that many atheist posters
point at the "lack of belief" definition when asked to give their
reasons for being atheist. This I claim is intellectual cowardice.
Yes, and I think your claim is baseless, and of course ad hominem.
b) Everybody knows that all people who actually call themselves
atheists have thought about the concept of the existence of gods and
have, in fact, reached some conclusion about this. So this definition
evidences intellectual dishonesty too, when in fact atheists are in
general characterized by intellectual honesty.
Another strawman. Again, bias that gods are important in lives. Religious
people often erroneously project this bias onto others.
I am not saying anything about the importance of gods. I am saying that
when atheists who have thought about theistic claims and have reached
their conclusions pretend that they haven't - as their definition of
atheism allows them to claim that - those atheists are being
intellectually dishonest. It's really childish. There may be people
out there so ignorant that they really have never considered or thought
about god(s) and therefore have not reached any conclusion about their
existence - but these people clearly are not posting to alt.atheism.
Or maybe it's a case of special pleading. After all, gods are not the
only things that may exist or not. People also wonder about the
existence of Santa Claus, of the perpetuum mobile, of the gravitron, of
efficient algorithms to factor numbers, of WMDs in Iraq, and so on. In
all these cases, we all agree, that people who speak about them do
reach some kind of conclusion about their existence (a valid conclusion
can be: I have no idea about whether this exists or not). So, the above
definition of atheism makes a special pleading: that in the case of
gods this normal state of affairs should not apply.
Non Sequitar, just because someone can reach a conclusion doesn't mean
they
have or place any value on the subject.
Where did I say anything about "value"? It seems to me that it's
you who is constantly using non sequitur. Above I claim that in all
other cases people affirm that they believe that something exists, or
that it doesn't, or that they have no idea whether it does or
doesn't.
I'm saying that just because someone reaches a functional conclusion about,
say the existence of Fred Flinstone on Pluto (have to divorce this from the
obvious), that doesn't mean that they are denying his existence, because
that is a logical fallacy no matter how ridiculous it is and of course it
doesn't mean anything in any case to them, because there is almost zero
value placed on the subject.
In all other cases people do not say things like "I lack
belief in the existence of something". The fact that atheists do so
in relation of the existence gods is clearly a case of special
pleading. If you don't agree then please explain why you say "I
believe that telepathy does not exist" or "I don't believe that
telepathy exists" but never say "I lack belief in the existence of
telepathy"?
Untrue. If someone had any knowledge of logical fallacies and were on a
witness stand knowing that a lawyer was trying to manuever them into a trap
they might assert their position more carefully and accurately than in
casual converasion.
I might phrase it in a different way such as "based on experiments performed
I think we are functionally safe in assuming that telepathy is not a genuine
phenomena" which is in fact my exact position on the subject.
I don't personaly like using the word "believe" because it has such a wide
range of use all the way from blindly hoping something different in the face
of the inevitable to unquestioned religious faith to asserting a well
supported scientific position.
If you are going to claim that because things are worded a certain way by a
majority of people in casual conversation that they are valid, I'll point
you to words such as "sunset" and "sunrise."
This last incoherence can be clarified on logical grounds too - and
this I think is my strongest objection:
When atheists say that they are atheists (as all posters to alt.atheism
who proudly put some kind of atheist id number in their signature do),
they claim to lack belief in the existence of gods, correct? Well, how
do they know that? They can't know that before understanding the
concept "existence of gods". Because if they don't have some
notion about what this concept means, neither can they know if they
lack or not belief in it.
I can lack belief in the toothfairy even though I completely understand
the
concept.
There are many concepts one does not *completely* understand. Actually
I wonder if there is any concept about which one can claim *complete*
understanding.
Excuse me for your latest red herring. I ammend it to "vaguely" understand
the concept of toothfairies.
That's not the issue. The issue is that in order to
reasonably claim anything about a concept (such as one lacks belief in
it) one must first have some understanding of it, don't you think? If
you don't can you give some counterexample?
I'm not disagreeing about someone who is claiming to be without belief
having some understanding of the subject. I was disagreeing with the way you
phrased it.
<snip>
So, even those declared atheists who insist on the definition of
atheism as lack of belief must a) explain what they mean by existence
of gods, and b) explain what conclusion they have reached while
thinking about the meaning of "existence of gods". In other words
they can't really hide behind that particular definition, so why not
use the more common "atheism means to believe that no gods exist"
and be done with?
Because that definition is utterly wrong.
For example:
Zeus may exist on the planet Pluto for all I know, so as a discipline, I
can't say I believe he doesn't exist. I can't say if anything does or
doesn't exist outside of my experience or knowledge. This is a basic rule
of
science.
Do I believe in Zeus? That's another story. No, I am without belief in
Zeus.
If you are saying that you can imagine Zeus existing on Pluto but you
have no information to make up your mind about whether he is there or
not, then you are declaring yourself agnostic in this question.
No, someone agnostic on the subject would say "I think Zeus may or may not
exist on Pluto."
I think we are functionally safe in assuming he doesn't but as a discipline
I can't rule out anything no matter how ridiculous.
I mean
agnostics can't say if something does or doesn't exist as it's
outside their experience of knowledge - exactly as you put it.
And neither can theists or atheists.
But
for agnostics existence and non-existence are symmetrical; they accept
the possibility of both but declare not to have sufficient reason to
believe in either. That's not the atheist position, right?
An atheist isn't addressing the issue.
I mean in
the atheist position the balance between existence and non-existence of
gods clearly weights towards non-existence, no? Or are you saying that
atheism and agnosticism mean exactly the same?
In atheism people feel functionally safe that God doesn't exist in the same
way they live their lives as if the Easter Bunny doesn't exist.
I hope that helps to clarify things?
Not really. Above I suggested the definition "atheism means to
believe that no gods exist". You claim that this definition is
utterly wrong, and then produce an example of agnosticism.
You have a right to think what you want. I of course disagree and have
clearly explained why.
150 bible atrocities, bible errors, bible contradictions, pecular Bible
verses, etc...
I noted the above in your signature. Please do not confuse Christianity
with Bibliolatry.
There's no confusion. I'm aware that there is a range of Christians from
"Bible is inerrant" to "Bible is metaphore."
take care,
Capella a.a #5
According to the Bible, which came first? The Chicken or the Man?
http://www.goatstar.org/according-to-the-bible-which-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-man/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dianelos Georgoudis" |
|
| Title: Re: bad bad definition of atheism (was: question) |
14 Feb 2006 07:27:02 AM |
|
|
Rockett Crawford wrote:
"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in message
news:1139814308.113166.258480@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Rockett Crawford wrote:
[snip]
Pot calling the kettle black. Most definitons of atheism are
"custom-tailored" by dictionaries to cater to Christians by portraying
atheists as denying that Jehovah exists with the implication that Jehovah
does in fact exist.
How does the simple definition "A theist is somebody who believes no
god(s) exist" imply all that?
I don't think you understood my answer. Please read it again.
I did. How does a dictionary that carries the definition "An atheist is
somebody who believes no god(s) exist" cater to Christians by implying
that Jehovah does in fact exist? Where is that implication? Are you
sure your logic is sound?
[snip]
In any case to believe that there is a Christian conspiracy to belittle
atheism using the dictionaries as a weapon is farfetched. I mean look
how you put it: "Portraying us as denying that X exists has the
implication that X does in fact exist". That's not true. For
example if a dictionary would define a skeptic as someone who denies
the existence of paranormal phenomena, nobody would suggest that the
dictionary implies that paranormal phenomena exist.
Strawman. Paranormal phenomena is abstract.
What do you mean? Paranormal phenomena are such things as telekinesis,
where people are supposed to be able to move things using only the
power of their mind. Moving things around is not abstract.
If a dictionary is being peddled
to believers of Jane Doe's psychic abilities and the definition was worded:
peole who deny the existence of Jane Doe's psychic abilities, then we have
something more like apples and apples.
I don't know what you are saying here. I was just pointing out that
defining something as disbelief in X does not in any way, shape or
manner imply that X exists. Really, this sounds completely over the top
to me. On the contrary it implies that at least some people doubt in X,
and therefore may motivate any reader to investigate a little deeper
whether belief in X is warranted.
Plus unless the definition includes a context, it is characterizing a
position which is invalid (proof of a negative) so therefore either the
position or the definiton is wrong.
Again, I don't understand what you are saying here. People who write
dictionaries write definitions taking into account the context in which
a particular word is used.
[snip]
Above I claim that in all
other cases people affirm that they believe that something exists, or
that it doesn't, or that they have no idea whether it does or
doesn't.
I'm saying that just because someone reaches a functional conclusion about,
say the existence of Fred Flinstone on Pluto (have to divorce this from the
obvious), that doesn't mean that they are denying his existence, because
that is a logical fallacy no matter how ridiculous it is and of course it
doesn't mean anything in any case to them, because there is almost zero
value placed on the subject.
That's too complicated. Why shouldn't we say "I believe that Fred
Flinstone on Pluto does not exist." - and be done with? Where's the
logical fallacy?
In all other cases people do not say things like "I lack
belief in the existence of something". The fact that atheists do so
in relation of the existence gods is clearly a case of special
pleading. If you don't agree then please explain why you say "I
believe that telepathy does not exist" or "I don't believe that
telepathy exists" but never say "I lack belief in the existence of
telepathy"?
Untrue. If someone had any knowledge of logical fallacies and were on a
witness stand knowing that a lawyer was trying to manuever them into a trap
they might assert their position more carefully and accurately than in
casual converasion.
I might phrase it in a different way such as "based on experiments performed
I think we are functionally safe in assuming that telepathy is not a genuine
phenomena" which is in fact my exact position on the subject.
Mine too (even more: it does not fit with the rest of what I know about
how the universe works). Anyway, why not use "believe" instead of
"functionally safe in assuming"? How would a lawer take advantage of
that?
I don't personaly like using the word "believe" because it has such a wide
range of use all the way from blindly hoping something different in the face
of the inevitable to unquestioned religious faith to asserting a well
supported scientific position.
Nonetheless it's an important concept, which means that one holds
something to be true. It's synonymous to "assert", "claim" etc. It may
imply that one has some confidence but no absolute certainty in one's
claim, but that's just as well: One is free to claim X even though one
is not absolutely certain that X is true. The only thing one is saying
is that one has more confidence in X being true rather than in X being
false.
If you are going to claim that because things are worded a certain way by a
majority of people in casual conversation that they are valid, I'll point
you to words such as "sunset" and "sunrise."
No. I am saying that if a word is defined in a way that contradicts its
normal use then that definition is a poor one.
[snip]
For example:
Zeus may exist on the planet Pluto for all I know, so as a discipline, I
can't say I believe he doesn't exist. I can't say if anything does or
doesn't exist outside of my experience or knowledge. This is a basic rule
of
science.
Do I believe in Zeus? That's another story. No, I am without belief in
Zeus.
If you are saying that you can imagine Zeus existing on Pluto but you
have no information to make up your mind about whether he is there or
not, then you are declaring yourself agnostic in this question.
No, someone agnostic on the subject would say "I think Zeus may or may not
exist on Pluto."
That is implied in what I wrote above, so where's the difference?
Except that I also included the main reason why the agnostic thinks so,
namely insufficient information.
I think we are functionally safe in assuming he doesn't but as a discipline
I can't rule out anything no matter how ridiculous.
That's what you would say in this case? Well, I say I do rule out that
Zeus exists on Pluto. So? Should I feel unsafe for saying this?
I mean
agnostics can't say if something does or doesn't exist as it's
outside their experience of knowledge - exactly as you put it.
And neither can theists or atheists.
Correct. Everybody's justification for a belief must always be based on
one's experience and on one's thinking about this experience.
But
for agnostics existence and non-existence are symmetrical; they accept
the possibility of both but declare not to have sufficient reason to
believe in either. That's not the atheist position, right?
An atheist isn't addressing the issue.
How then does she know she is an atheist? She must have addressed the
issue at some point.
I mean in
the atheist position the balance between existence and non-existence of
gods clearly weights towards non-existence, no? Or are you saying that
atheism and agnosticism mean exactly the same?
In atheism people feel functionally safe that God doesn't exist in the same
way they live their lives as if the Easter Bunny doesn't exist.
I feel perfectly safe saying that I believe that the Easter Bunny does
not exist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rockett Crawford" |
|
| Title: Re: bad bad definition of atheism (was: question) |
14 Feb 2006 09:12:12 AM |
|
|
"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in message
news:1139923622.248679.200480@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Rockett Crawford wrote:
"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in message
news:1139814308.113166.258480@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Rockett Crawford wrote:
[snip]
Pot calling the kettle black. *Most* definitons of atheism are
"custom-tailored" by dictionaries to cater to Christians by portraying
atheists as denying that Jehovah exists with the implication that
Jehovah
does in fact exist.
How does the simple definition "A theist is somebody who believes no
god(s) exist" imply all that?
I don't think you understood my answer. Please read it again.
I did. How does a dictionary that carries the definition "An atheist is
somebody who believes no god(s) exist" cater to Christians by implying
that Jehovah does in fact exist? Where is that implication? Are you
sure your logic is sound?
Another red herring then. I guess you missed the word "most" above?
[snip]
In any case to believe that there is a Christian conspiracy to belittle
atheism using the dictionaries as a weapon is farfetched. I mean look
how you put it: "Portraying us as denying that X exists has the
implication that X does in fact exist". That's not true. For
example if a dictionary would define a skeptic as someone who denies
the existence of paranormal phenomena, nobody would suggest that the
dictionary implies that paranormal phenomena exist.
Strawman. Paranormal phenomena is abstract.
What do you mean? Paranormal phenomena are such things as telekinesis,
where people are supposed to be able to move things using only the
power of their mind. Moving things around is not abstract.
You misunderstood. What I meant is that such a definiton is about a broad
category of phenomena and not citing a particular person or entity.
If a dictionary is being peddled
to believers of Jane Doe's psychic abilities and the definition was
worded:
peole who deny the existence of Jane Doe's psychic abilities, then we
have
something more like apples and apples.
I don't know what you are saying here. I was just pointing out that
defining something as disbelief in X does not in any way, shape or
manner imply that X exists.
Yes it does if the "something" is the captialized "God." More objective
definitions tend to use the more generic "gods" or "a god." The former (at
least in American dictionaries) suggests bias towards the Judeo-Christian
god.
Really, this sounds completely over the top
to me. On the contrary it implies that at least some people doubt in X,
and therefore may motivate any reader to investigate a little deeper
whether belief in X is warranted.
Plus unless the definition includes a context, it is characterizing a
position which is invalid (proof of a negative) so therefore either the
position or the definiton is wrong.
Again, I don't understand what you are saying here. People who write
dictionaries write definitions taking into account the context in which
a particular word is used.
I think you've misunderstood again. By context I mean that a negative can
sometimes be proven in a "known set of conditions," geometrically,
mathematically, etc... but a general negative as portrayed in the Christian
definiton of Athiesm is a logical fallacy.
[snip]
Above I claim that in all
other cases people affirm that they believe that something exists, or
that it doesn't, or that they have no idea whether it does or
doesn't.
I'm saying that just because someone reaches a functional conclusion
about,
say the existence of Fred Flinstone on Pluto (have to divorce this from
the
obvious), that doesn't mean that they are denying his existence, because
that is a logical fallacy no matter how ridiculous it is and of course it
doesn't mean anything in any case to them, because there is almost zero
value placed on the subject.
That's too complicated. Why shouldn't we say "I believe that Fred
Flinstone on Pluto does not exist." - and be done with? Where's the
logical fallacy?
Because in science, *as a discipline,* you can't do such a thing. You can
operate functionally as if such a ridiculous concept is false, but again, as
a discipline, you can't rule it out.
In all other cases people do not say things like "I lack
belief in the existence of something". The fact that atheists do so
in relation of the existence gods is clearly a case of special
pleading. If you don't agree then please explain why you say "I
believe that telepathy does not exist" or "I don't believe that
telepathy exists" but never say "I lack belief in the existence of
telepathy"?
Untrue. If someone had any knowledge of logical fallacies and were on a
witness stand knowing that a lawyer was trying to manuever them into a
trap
they might assert their position more carefully and accurately than in
casual converasion.
I might phrase it in a different way such as "based on experiments
performed
I think we are functionally safe in assuming that telepathy is not a
genuine
phenomena" which is in fact my exact position on the subject.
Mine too (even more: it does not fit with the rest of what I know about
how the universe works). Anyway, why not use "believe" instead of
"functionally safe in assuming"? How would a lawer take advantage of
that?
I answered this in the next paragraph:
I don't personaly like using the word "believe" because it has such a
wide
range of use all the way from blindly hoping something different in the
face
of the inevitable to unquestioned religious faith to asserting a well
supported scientific position.
Nonetheless it's an important concept, which means that one holds
something to be true. It's synonymous to "assert", "claim" etc.
It may imply that one has some confidence but no absolute certainty in
one's
claim, but that's just as well: One is free to claim X even though one
is not absolutely certain that X is true. The only thing one is saying
is that one has more confidence in X being true rather than in X being
false.
If you are going to claim that because things are worded a certain way by
a
majority of people in casual conversation that they are valid, I'll point
you to words such as "sunset" and "sunrise."
No. I am saying that if a word is defined in a way that contradicts its
normal use then that definition is a poor one.
I disagree. I think that a definiton should instead be an accurate one, not
just one as used by a particular group of people, but I'm not an editor of
one of those dictionaries trying to sell to a mostly Judeo-Christian
audience.
[snip]
For example:
Zeus may exist on the planet Pluto for all I know, so as a discipline,
I
can't say I believe he doesn't exist. I can't say if anything does or
doesn't exist outside of my experience or knowledge. This is a basic
rule
of
science.
Do I believe in Zeus? That's another story. No, I am without belief in
Zeus.
If you are saying that you can imagine Zeus existing on Pluto but you
have no information to make up your mind about whether he is there or
not, then you are declaring yourself agnostic in this question.
No, someone agnostic on the subject would say "I think Zeus may or may
not
exist on Pluto."
That is implied in what I wrote above, so where's the difference?
The agnostic is seriously addressing the issue. The atheist feels
functionally safe that it's a non-issue.
Except that I also included the main reason why the agnostic thinks so,
namely insufficient information.
I think we are functionally safe in assuming he doesn't but as a
discipline
I can't rule out anything no matter how ridiculous.
That's what you would say in this case? Well, I say I do rule out that
Zeus exists on Pluto. So? Should I feel unsafe for saying this?
You can feel safe, but you can't rule it out as a discipline.
I mean
agnostics can't say if something does or doesn't exist as it's
outside their experience of knowledge - exactly as you put it.
And neither can theists or atheists.
Correct. Everybody's justification for a belief must always be based on
one's experience and on one's thinking about this experience.
No, there are some things that are outside of our experience which we can
hold no "beliefs" on, again no matter how ridiculous or on the other side
how psychologically gratifying the "thing" is.
But
for agnostics existence and non-existence are symmetrical; they accept
the possibility of both but declare not to have sufficient reason to
believe in either. That's not the atheist position, right?
An atheist isn't addressing the issue.
How then does she know she is an atheist? She must have addressed the
issue at some point.
Maybe or maybe not. It doesn't matter. The atheist feels safe in the
assumption of the non-existence. Have I ever aggressively investigated that
Yosemite Sam is ruling the Andromeda Galaxy? No. Have I and will I feel safe
that that's not the case? Yes.
I mean in
the atheist position the balance between existence and non-existence of
gods clearly weights towards non-existence, no? Or are you saying that
atheism and agnosticism mean exactly the same?
In atheism people feel functionally safe that God doesn't exist in the
same
way they live their lives as if the Easter Bunny doesn't exist.
I feel perfectly safe saying that I believe that the Easter Bunny does
not exist.
If you "deny it," then your position is as a rule, fallacious. If your use
of "belief" happens to be the version that holds unquestionable confidence
then it is also as a rule fallicious.
I can repeat it over and over. You can feel safe, that's fine, but even
though some concepts are laughable, they can't be proven false outside of a
context and therefore as a discipline such a position is
fallacious. This is known as trying to prove or assert a negative.
take care,
Capella a.a #5
Does the Creation Account in Genesis Fit the Big Bang and Modern Cosmology?
http://www.goatstar.org/does-the-creation-account-in-genesis-fit-the-big-bang-and-modern-cosmology/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dianelos Georgoudis" |
|
| Title: Re: bad bad definition of atheism (was: question) |
14 Feb 2006 11:02:11 AM |
|
|
Rockett Crawford wrote:
[huge snip]
I can repeat it over and over. You can feel safe, that's fine, but even
though some concepts are laughable, they can't be proven false outside of a
context and therefore as a discipline such a position is
fallacious. This is known as trying to prove or assert a negative.
I find it very easy to prove or assert a negative. For example I assert
that there is no fractional number that multiplied by itself equals 2.
Also I assert that the earth is not built of solid gold. Also I assert
that there doesn't exist a second moon orbiting the earth. Or that no
nuclear bomb exploded of New York last year. Or that I don't have three
legs. Or that matter cannot move faster than light. Or that there is
not a 10 carat blue diamond inside the laptop I am using.
That it's impossible to "prove" a negative is another piece of
atheistic folklore. Actually I wonder where this idea came from. I
think it came when theists started asking atheists to prove that there
are no gods. So some atheists instead of simply answering that proofs
are irrelevant and that the reason they believe that no gods exist is
that they see no reason why to believe this - instead of this simple
and straightforward answer some of them came up with the strange idea
that "you can't prove a negative". Of course you can - as far as
"proofs" can go.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rockett Crawford" |
|
| Title: Re: bad bad definition of atheism (was: question) |
14 Feb 2006 02:21:56 PM |
|
|
"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in message
news:1139935196.408495.38120@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Rockett Crawford wrote:
[huge snip]
I can repeat it over and over. You can feel safe, that's fine, but even
though some concepts are laughable, they can't be proven false outside of
a
context and therefore as a discipline such a position is
fallacious. This is known as trying to prove or assert a negative.
I find it very easy to prove or assert a negative. For example I assert
that there is no fractional number that multiplied by itself equals 2.
Yes, I had mentioned that in a part of my post you snipped. In the context
of mathematics, it's possible to prove a negative.
Also I assert that the earth is not built of solid gold. Also I assert
that there doesn't exist a second moon orbiting the earth. Or that no
nuclear bomb exploded of New York last year. Or that I don't have three
legs. Or that matter cannot move faster than light. Or that there is
not a 10 carat blue diamond inside the laptop I am using.
Yes, again, in my posting that you snipped out I mentioned that it's
possible to prove a negative inside of known contexts.
All of these you mention are within given contexts aren't they?
That it's impossible to "prove" a negative is another piece of
atheistic folklore.
I've already mentioned many situations where it's not possible to prove a
negative.
Actually I wonder where this idea came from. I
think it came when theists started asking atheists to prove that there
are no gods. So some atheists instead of simply answering that proofs
are irrelevant and that the reason they believe that no gods exist is
that they see no reason why to believe this - instead of this simple
and straightforward answer some of them came up with the strange idea
that "you can't prove a negative". Of course you can - as far as
"proofs" can go.
Yes, again, in the "huge" snip you did, you snipped out where I said in
mathematics and geometry and in other contexts it is possible to prove a
negative.
However, can you prove to me that pixies don't exist?
If so then how will you do it? Do you have the ability to search every point
in the universe in every known and unknown dimension simultaneously for this
creature? Do you know for sure that whatever detection apparatus you use
will detect it? Do you know for sure there aren't other universes? Etc, etc,
etc...
take care,
Capella a.a #5
Does the Creation Account in Genesis Fit the Big Bang and Modern Cosmology?
http://www.goatstar.org/does-the-creation-account-in-genesis-fit-the-big-bang-and-modern-cosmology/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dianelos Georgoudis" |
|
| Title: Re: bad bad definition of atheism (was: question) |
14 Feb 2006 03:39:15 PM |
|
|
Rockett Crawford wrote:
"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in message
news:1139935196.408495.38120@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Rockett Crawford wrote:
[huge snip]
I can repeat it over and over. You can feel safe, that's fine, but even
though some concepts are laughable, they can't be proven false outside of
a
context and therefore as a discipline such a position is
fallacious. This is known as trying to prove or assert a negative.
I find it very easy to prove or assert a negative. For example I assert
that there is no fractional number that multiplied by itself equals 2.
Yes, I had mentioned that in a part of my post you snipped. In the context
of mathematics, it's possible to prove a negative.
Also I assert that the earth is not built of solid gold. Also I assert
that there doesn't exist a second moon orbiting the earth. Or that no
nuclear bomb exploded of New York last year. Or that I don't have three
legs. Or that matter cannot move faster than light. Or that there is
not a 10 carat blue diamond inside the laptop I am using.
Yes, again, in my posting that you snipped out I mentioned that it's
possible to prove a negative inside of known contexts.
All of these you mention are within given contexts aren't they?
That it's impossible to "prove" a negative is another piece of
atheistic folklore.
I've already mentioned many situations where it's not possible to prove a
negative.
Actually I wonder where this idea came from. I
think it came when theists started asking atheists to prove that there
are no gods. So some atheists instead of simply answering that proofs
are irrelevant and that the reason they believe that no gods exist is
that they see no reason why to believe this - instead of this simple
and straightforward answer some of them came up with the strange idea
that "you can't prove a negative". Of course you can - as far as
"proofs" can go.
Yes, again, in the "huge" snip you did, you snipped out where I said in
mathematics and geometry and in other contexts it is possible to prove a
negative.
Correct. Sorry about that.
However, can you prove to me that pixies don't exist?
Depends on what you mean by "proof". As I wrote in another post it's
impossible to really *prove* that Christopher Columbus existed, but
even so we are all very confident that he did exist.
As far as pixies go I can give you a fairly good argument why I believe
they don't exist. I could do better with Santa Claus.
If so then how will you do it? Do you have the ability to search every point
in the universe in every known and unknown dimension simultaneously for this
creature? Do you know for sure that whatever detection apparatus you use
will detect it? Do you know for sure there aren't other universes? Etc, etc,
etc...
No, I can't do any of these things. Neither do I feel I need to do all
these things in order to justify my view that pixies do not exist.
Again, please observe that in order to really *prove* that Christopher
Columbus existed (which is a positive claim of existence) I would need
to be able to travel back in time and I can't do that either. So many
positive existential claims cannot be proven either. In fact I know of
nothing that can be really be proved in any context - including
mathematics (because even in math we must assume the truth of some
premises without proof). So, I think we should drop "proof" and ask and
speak only of good reasons.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rockett Crawford" |
|
| Title: Re: bad bad definition of atheism (was: question) |
14 Feb 2006 04:26:56 PM |
|
|
"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in message
news:1139953155.724718.322300@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Rockett Crawford wrote:
However, can you prove to me that pixies don't exist?
Depends on what you mean by "proof". As I wrote in another post it's
impossible to really *prove* that Christopher Columbus existed, but
even so we are all very confident that he did exist.
As far as pixies go I can give you a fairly good argument why I believe
they don't exist. I could do better with Santa Claus.
If so then how will you do it? Do you have the ability to search every
point
in the universe in every known and unknown dimension simultaneously for
this
creature? Do you know for sure that whatever detection apparatus you use
will detect it? Do you know for sure there aren't other universes? Etc,
etc,
etc...
No, I can't do any of these things. Neither do I feel I need to do all
these things in order to justify my view that pixies do not exist.
Again, please observe that in order to really *prove* that Christopher
Columbus existed (which is a positive claim of existence) I would need
to be able to travel back in time and I can't do that either. So many
positive existential claims cannot be proven either.
Herring.
In fact I know of
nothing that can be really be proved in any context - including
mathematics (because even in math we must assume the truth of some
premises without proof).
Herring.
So, I think we should drop "proof" and ask and
speak only of good reasons.
By the increased red herring rate, I'll take it that you've conceeded that
absolutely ruling out the non-existence of something outside of a given
context is a fallacy?
As I said, this is one reason why the Christian definitions of atheism are
wrong.
take care,
Capella a.a #5
Does the Creation Account in Genesis Fit the Big Bang and Modern Cosmology?
http://www.goatstar.org/does-the-creation-account-in-genesis-fit-the-big-bang-and-modern-cosmology/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: bad bad definition of atheism (was: question) |
14 Feb 2006 03:46:51 PM |
|
|
On 14 Feb 2006 13:39:15 -0800, "Dianelos Georgoudis"
<dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote:
Depends on what you mean by "proof". As I wrote in another post it's
impossible to really *prove* that Christopher Columbus existed, but
even so we are all very confident that he did exist.
Standard theist dishonesty.
Feel free to provide evidence to the same level of confidence that
Christopher Columbus existed, that the God of your religion does.
When you realise you can't, you are part way to grasping that OUTSIDE
YOUR RELIGION IT IS MERELY SOMEBODY ELSE'S RELIGIOUS BELIEF.
Of course Columbus is a conclusion from the historical process, not a
pre-existing religious belief looking for a rationalisation.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: bad bad definition of atheism (was: question) |
11 Feb 2006 11:57:20 AM |
|
|
"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in message
news:1139650155.115357.44860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Here is a typical exchange in alt.atheism about what atheism is:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In <1139488432.463347.257300@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
mapsapi@hotmail.com wrote:
Heres a question:
[snip]
Atheism isn't about "proving" or "disproving" the existence of anything
at
all. Nor does atheism have "conclusions."
Atheism is the state of being without belief in any gods.
I think this is a poor definition for many reasons.
<snip>
By substituting "X" with "existence of gods" results in this:
In a discussion those intellectually honest people who claim they lack
of belief in the existence of gods must explain what they mean when
they say "existence of gods" and what conclusion they have reached
after thinking about this concept.
The conclusion weak atheists have reached is that
they can not conclude that a god exists nor that no
god exist.
They have concluded that the evidence is inconclusive.
In short I find many atheists' insistence in defining atheism as the
lack of something to be a childish trick.
I think you are getting tangled up in the meaning of 'belief'.
Mark used 'belief' in the sense of 'convinced of the truth of s.t.'
and you seem to be using it as 'having made an assessment the truth of
s.t.'.
Weak atheists have made an assessment of the truth
of the god stories and have found the evidence inconclusive.
--
rb #2187
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dianelos Georgoudis" |
|
| Title: Re: bad bad definition of atheism (was: question) |
14 Feb 2006 02:34:31 AM |
|
|
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in message
news:1139650155.115357.44860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Here is a typical exchange in alt.atheism about what atheism is:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In <1139488432.463347.257300@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
mapsapi@hotmail.com wrote:
Heres a question:
[snip]
Atheism isn't about "proving" or "disproving" the existence of anything
at
all. Nor does atheism have "conclusions."
Atheism is the state of being without belief in any gods.
I think this is a poor definition for many reasons.
<snip>
By substituting "X" with "existence of gods" results in this:
In a discussion those intellectually honest people who claim they lack
of belief in the existence of gods must explain what they mean when
they say "existence of gods" and what conclusion they have reached
after thinking about this concept.
The conclusion weak atheists have reached is that
they can not conclude that a god exists nor that no
god exist.
They have concluded that the evidence is inconclusive.
That's the agnostic position. Agnosticism is supposed to be different
than atheism.
In short I find many atheists' insistence in defining atheism as the
lack of something to be a childish trick.
I think you are getting tangled up in the meaning of 'belief'.
Mark used 'belief' in the sense of 'convinced of the truth of s.t.'
and you seem to be using it as 'having made an assessment the truth of
s.t.'.
The latter meaning is the conservative one, isn't it? After all in
order to reach the state of being convinced one must pass through the
stage of assessing something. So those who only reach the
"assessment" stage are the agnostics, those who also reach the
"convinced" stage are the theist and atheists. I would like to
point out that there are two sub-stages of "convinced": one can be
absolutely certain (as when one speaks of "strong atheism") or one
can only lean towards a particular view (as when one speaks of "weak
atheism" or theists who took Pascal's wager). Actually there are
many sub-stages reflecting one's confidence in one's beliefs. If
you observe most theists' life it evidences that they don't really
have a lot of confidence in the existence of their gods. Still, and
this is my central argument in this thread, everybody who has made an
assessment has reached *some* conclusion.
Weak atheists have made an assessment of the truth
of the god stories and have found the evidence inconclusive.
Why then use the concept "weak atheism" when there is already the
perfectly valid concept of "agnosticism"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: bad bad definition of atheism (was: question) |
14 Feb 2006 07:19:31 AM |
|
|
On 14 Feb 2006 00:34:31 -0800, "Dianelos Georgoudis"
<dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote:
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in message
news:1139650155.115357.44860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Here is a typical exchange in alt.atheism about what atheism is:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In <1139488432.463347.257300@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
mapsapi@hotmail.com wrote:
Heres a question:
[snip]
Atheism isn't about "proving" or "disproving" the existence of anything
at
all. Nor does atheism have "conclusions."
Atheism is the state of being without belief in any gods.
I think this is a poor definition for many reasons.
<snip>
By substituting "X" with "existence of gods" results in this:
In a discussion those intellectually honest people who claim they lack
of belief in the existence of gods must explain what they mean when
they say "existence of gods" and what conclusion they have reached
after thinking about this concept.
The conclusion weak atheists have reached is that
they can not conclude that a god exists nor that no
god exist.
They have concluded that the evidence is inconclusive.
That's the agnostic position. Agnosticism is supposed to be different
than atheism.
An agnostic can be a theist or an atheist - just another bit of
reality for you to ignore.
In short I find many atheists' insistence in defining atheism as the
lack of something to be a childish trick.
I think you are getting tangled up in the meaning of 'belief'.
Mark used 'belief' in the sense of 'convinced of the truth of s.t.'
and you seem to be using it as 'having made an assessment the truth of
s.t.'.
The latter meaning is the conservative one, isn't it? After all in
order to reach the state of being convinced one must pass through the
stage of assessing something. So those who only reach the
"assessment" stage are the agnostics,
No, an agnostic can conclude that there is no objective reason to
believe in any god and not believe based on that conclusion, or he can
(as some do) believe anyway. In both cases the agnostic continues to
be an agnostic.
snip
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dianelos Georgoudis" |
|
| Title: Re: bad bad definition of atheism (was: question) |
14 Feb 2006 07:35:02 AM |
|
|
thomas p wrote:
On 14 Feb 2006 00:34:31 -0800, "Dianelos Georgoudis"
<dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote:
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in message
news:1139650155.115357.44860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Here is a typical exchange in alt.atheism about what atheism is:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In <1139488432.463347.257300@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
mapsapi@hotmail.com wrote:
Heres a question:
[snip]
Atheism isn't about "proving" or "disproving" the existence of anything
at
all. Nor does atheism have "conclusions."
Atheism is the state of being without belief in any gods.
I think this is a poor definition for many reasons.
<snip>
By substituting "X" with "existence of gods" results in this:
In a discussion those intellectually honest people who claim they lack
of belief in the existence of gods must explain what they mean when
they say "existence of gods" and what conclusion they have reached
after thinking about this concept.
The conclusion weak atheists have reached is that
they can not conclude that a god exists nor that no
god exist.
They have concluded that the evidence is inconclusive.
That's the agnostic position. Agnosticism is supposed to be different
than atheism.
An agnostic can be a theist or an atheist - just another bit of
reality for you to ignore.
In short I find many atheists' insistence in defining atheism as the
lack of something to be a childish trick.
I think you are getting tangled up in the meaning of 'belief'.
Mark used 'belief' in the sense of 'convinced of the truth of s.t.'
and you seem to be using it as 'having made an assessment the truth of
s.t.'.
The latter meaning is the conservative one, isn't it? After all in
order to reach the state of being convinced one must pass through the
stage of assessing something. So those who only reach the
"assessment" stage are the agnostics,
No, an agnostic can conclude that there is no objective reason to
believe in any god and not believe based on that conclusion, or he can
(as some do) believe anyway. In both cases the agnostic continues to
be an agnostic.
So that person would claim to be both an agnostic and theist -
concerning the same deity? Remarkable. It gets more and more confusing.
Which is probably what one would expect would happen when people
propose creative definitions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" |
|
| Title: Re: bad bad definition of atheism (was: question) |
14 Feb 2006 11:29:09 AM |
|
|
From: Dianelos Georgoudis - view profile
Date: Tues, Feb 14 2006 12:34 am
Email: "Dianelos Georgoudis" <diane...@tecapro.com>
Groups: alt.atheism
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
Your previous reply didn't show on my news reader.
I found it in google.
<snip>
The conclusion weak atheists have reached is that
they can not conclude that a god exists nor that no
god exist.
They have concluded that the evidence is inconclusive.
That's the agnostic position. Agnosticism is supposed to be different
than atheism.
Says who?
In short I find many atheists' insistence in defining atheism as
the
lack of something to be a childish trick.
I think you are getting tangled up in the meaning of 'belief'.
Mark used 'belief' in the sense of 'convinced of the truth of s.t.'
and you seem to be using it as 'having made an assessment the truth
of
s.t.'.
The latter meaning is the conservative one, isn't it? After all in
order to reach the state of being convinced one must pass through the
stage of assessing something. So those who only reach the
"assessment" stage are the agnostics, those who also reach the
"convinced" stage are the theist and atheists.
Again, you are argueing semantics and insisting on
your chosen meaning for 'atheist'.
Wiki has a good entry on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
I would like to
point out that there are two sub-stages of "convinced": one can be
absolutely certain (as when one speaks of "strong atheism") or one
can only lean towards a particular view (as when one speaks of "weak
atheism" or theists who took Pascal's wager). Actually there are
many sub-stages reflecting one's confidence in one's beliefs. If
you observe most theists' life it evidences that they don't really
have a lot of confidence in the existence of their gods. Still, and
this is my central argument in this thread, everybody who has made an
assessment has reached *some* conclusion.
And that conclusion can be that no conclusion can be reached.
Weak atheists have made an assessment of the truth
of the god stories and have found the evidence inconclusive.
Why then use the concept "weak atheism" when there is already the
perfectly valid concept of "agnosticism"?
Are you familiar with the concept 'synonym'?
--
rb
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: bad bad definition of atheism (was: question) |
14 Feb 2006 02:18:12 PM |
|
|
On 14 Feb 2006 05:35:02 -0800, "Dianelos Georgoudis"
<dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote:
thomas p wrote:
On 14 Feb 2006 00:34:31 -0800, "Dianelos Georgoudis"
<dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote:
Ron Baker, Pluralitas! wrote:
"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in message
news:1139650155.115357.44860@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Here is a typical exchange in alt.atheism about what atheism is:
Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
In <1139488432.463347.257300@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
mapsapi@hotmail.com wrote:
Heres a question:
[snip]
Atheism isn't about "proving" or "disproving" the existence of anything
at
all. Nor does atheism have "conclusions."
Atheism is the state of being without belief in any gods.
I think this is a poor definition for many reasons.
<snip>
By substituting "X" with "existence of gods" results in this:
In a discussion those intellectually honest people who claim they lack
of belief in the existence of gods must explain what they mean when
they say "existence of gods" and what conclusion they have reached
after thinking about this concept.
The conclusion weak atheists have reached is that
they can not conclude that a god exists nor that no
god exist.
They have concluded that the evidence is inconclusive.
That's the agnostic position. Agnosticism is supposed to be different
than atheism.
An agnostic can be a theist or an atheist - just another bit of
reality for you to ignore.
In short I find many atheists' insistence in defining atheism as the
lack of something to be a childish trick.
I think you are getting tangled up in the meaning of 'belief'.
Mark used 'belief' in the sense of 'convinced of the truth of s.t.'
and you seem to be using it as 'having made an assessment the truth of
s.t.'.
The latter meaning is the conservative one, isn't it? After all in
order to reach the state of being convinced one must pass through the
stage of assessing something. So those who only reach the
"assessment" stage are the agnostics,
No, an agnostic can conclude that there is no objective reason to
believe in any god and not believe based on that conclusion, or he can
(as some do) believe anyway. In both cases the agnostic continues to
be an agnostic.
So that person would claim to be both an agnostic and theist -
concerning the same deity? Remarkable.
It is remarkable how you can so consistently distort what is said.
There is no contradiction about being an agnostic and an atheist.
They are not opposing positions.
It gets more and more confusing.
Which is probably what one would expect would happen when people
propose creative definitions.
I am trying to assume that your confusion is real, but it is getting
harder to do.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Brian Henderson" |
|
| Title: Re: bad bad definition of atheism (was: question) |
14 Feb 2006 02:59:43 PM |
|
|
On 14 Feb 2006 05:35:02 -0800, "Dianelos Georgoudis"
<dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote:
So that person would claim to be both an agnostic and theist -
concerning the same deity? Remarkable. It gets more and more confusing.
Which is probably what one would expect would happen when people
propose creative definitions.
Yes, that person would say that while they cannot be certain that said
deity exists, they still believe in it. These aren't creative
definitions, they are *ACCURATE* definitions. Why are you so
unconcerned with accuracy?
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: bad bad definition of atheism (was: question) |
15 Feb 2006 12:42:27 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 20:59:43 GMT, Brian Henderson
<BrianL.Henderson@NOSPAM.verizon.net> wrote:
On 14 Feb 2006 05:35:02 -0800, "Dianelos Georgoudis"
<dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote:
So that person would claim to be both an agnostic and theist -
concerning the same deity? Remarkable. It gets more and more confusing.
Which is probably what one would expect would happen when people
propose creative definitions.
Yes, that person would say that while they cannot be certain that said
deity exists, they still believe in it. These aren't creative
definitions, they are *ACCURATE* definitions. Why are you so
unconcerned with accuracy?
In this particular case it is inconvenient for him. He wants to put
atheists in a little box that is easy to attack, and mere reality is
not going to interfere.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: bad bad definition of atheism (was: question) |
15 Feb 2006 12:55:25 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006 19:42:27 +0100, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 20:59:43 GMT, Brian Henderson
<BrianL.Henderson@NOSPAM.verizon.net> wrote:
On 14 Feb 2006 05:35:02 -0800, "Dianelos G | | | | | | | |
