| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Dianelos Georgoudis" |
| Date: |
17 Dec 2004 06:10:18 AM |
| Object: |
Better definitions for atheism and agnosticism |
I think that www.infidels.org (see:
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html) describes atheism and
agnosticism in terms that are not quite straightforward and that
consequently create a lot of noise in alt.atheism. The definition in
question is the often quoted "Atheism is characterized by an absence of
belief in the existence of gods". I think this definition appears to be
motivated by:
a) The desire to find a definition that covers both atheism and
agnosticism. This is not quite fair to agnosticism I think, as it wouldn't
be fair if a theist were to define theism as the non-denial of the
existence of gods.
b) The desire, as a practical matter, to avoid the need for atheists to
justify their position. Even though all propositions require justification,
it is fair that the one who claims the default and "obvious" position
should not carry the same burden to justify her claim as the one who makes
otherworldly claims. Even though I agree with this desire I think a
definition is not the place to enforce it.
In this post I suggest what I believe are better definitions. I start by
showing some failings in the application of www.infidels.org definition.
According to this definition the following statements are true:
1. A new-born baby is an atheist.
2. An imbecile in a psychiatric hospital is an atheist.
3. A Roman Catholic Pope who is brain-dead but kept alive on life support
is an atheist.
Personally I don't think any of the three statements is reasonable, for
they ridicule and diminish atheism. If one is forced to accept them because
of this particular definition of atheism maybe it's a good idea to find a
better definition. I would like to suggest the following definitions and
comments:
Atheists are people who after encountering the concept of god and reasoning
about it arrive at the conclusion that no such beings or entities exist.
Not all atheists are alike. Some of them simply think that gods probably or
very probably do not exist; others, for all practical purposes, are certain
that gods do not exist. Some atheists studied the notion of god in depth
before arriving at their conclusion. Other atheists judged the basic idea
of gods so absurd that it did not deserve such effort on their part.
Atheists should not be confused with agnostics.
Agnostics are people who after encountering the concept of god and
reasoning about it fail to reach any conclusion that would give them some
confidence in the existence or non-existence of gods. Some agnostics
believe that it is in principle impossible to come to such a conclusion
based on reason alone. Agnostics refuse to believe anything not based on
reason alone, so in this case they refuse to believe either in the
existence or the non-existence of gods. An agnostic keeps the same distance
from theists and atheists, and claims allegiance to neither group, even
though she recognizes that agnostics and atheist are alike in their
insistence that only reason based on evidence can justify belief. .
People who have never heard or were never curious about the concept of god
or who for some other reason have not thought about this concept and
therefore came to no conclusion whatsoever form a different group that may
be called uninformed in the question of god. For this group (which is very
small as far as the general concept of god is concerned) we may coin the
name "whotheists", like in: "Question: Do you believe in the existence of
god? Answer: Who?"
There are many concepts of gods. Sometimes it is assumed by default that
any god must be personal, i.e. be a conscious being of free will, and not
some kind of impersonal principle. This can give rise to some confusion as
one can claim to be both religious and atheist, if one's religion does not
claim the existence of a personal god (but rather of an impersonal absolute
principle) as is the case in Buddhism and Taoism, for example.
Most atheists and agnostics find a common denominator in all gods and hold
the same position towards all gods. It is possible though that the same
person is an atheist in some particular concept of god and agnostic or
uninformed in some other concept. For example a person may be an atheist to
the concept of the god called YHWH as literally described in the Old
Testament but may be agnostic or uninformed about the concept of god as the
impersonal "the ground of all being" or the concept of god as "the perfect
conscious being".
For completeness I would like to cover theism too:
A theist is a person who believes (i.e. holds true) that at least one god
exists. Under "god" theists understand a being that a) is a person, i.e.
has independent consciousness and will, b) is supernatural, i.e. is not
exclusively a physical being that forms part of physical reality and is
subject to its laws, c) is relevant, i.e. does affect physical reality or
our experience of physical reality in some way. All followers of the great
monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam also believe that
d) there is only one god of limitless power who has created and sustains
physical reality as part of some plan. The use of reason based on evidence
appears not to be a requirement for most theists.
"God" in upper-case is usually reserved by theists as the name of the one
god the three monotheistic religions believe in. Some confusion arises from
the fact that atheists and agnostics sometimes use the word "god" in
lower-case as synonymous to "concept/view of god" and sometimes as
synonymous to "the being purported to exist under some concept/view of
god". Under the first meaning an atheist may actually claim "There are many
gods." Under the second meaning an atheist may say to a theist "Which god
do you refer to?" or may say "There are many gods called 'God'."
Monotheists do not normally use the word "god" in lower-case or in plural
(except when denoting a god of some polytheistic religion), but speak only
of God, even though they accept that there are differing views about what
this being is. The use of language by theists can be elucidated by
comparing it to the use of language by scientists. Scientists too accept
that there are differences in their precise individual views about physical
reality, but they all name physical reality "the universe". Therefore when
one scientist makes a particular claim it makes little sense for the other
to ask "which universe are you referring to?" for they both base their
dialog on the premise that only one physical reality exists. In a dialog
between theists and atheists it is a good idea if both sides keep in mind
the other side's worldview in order to understand the other side's use of
language.
Religion is a vague concept that expresses the organization of the common
beliefs and that a group of people hold about ultimate reality, which they
perceive to be larger or deeper ordered than physical reality as understood
by science. The concept of religion also covers the customs, literature,
temples, and symbols that people establish to celebrate their common
beliefs. As we saw, not all religions are theistic religions.
To finish I would like to suggest a principle of discourse:
There are probably as many positions about the question of the existence of
gods are there are thinking people around. What every person believes is
ultimately her own individual choice. The principle of freedom of thought
requires that each person respect each other person's beliefs as well as
how each person arrives at these beliefs. Nevertheless as we hold evident
that there is only one truth which all thinking people desire to reach,
dialog in these matters is to be encouraged as long as it does not become
coercive or violent in any way.
.
|
|
| User: "Editor of EvilBible.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Better definitions for atheism and agnosticism |
17 Dec 2004 06:17:35 PM |
|
|
"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in message
news:1qxznbcu8azyy$.nkpv0rjlfcl2.dlg@40tude.net...
I think that www.infidels.org (see:
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html) describes atheism and
agnosticism in terms that are not quite straightforward and that
consequently create a lot of noise in alt.atheism. The definition in
question is the often quoted "Atheism is characterized by an absence of
belief in the existence of gods". <snip>
Here are a few links that are written by atheists that should be read by all
the proponents of a "lack of belief" definition of atheism. Most are
multiple pages, be sure to read the complete link.
1) Atheism and Natheism. An article by Professor Tony Pasquarello in the
Autumn 2003 edition of American Atheist Magazine.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0OBB/is_4_41/ai_111268789
2) Atheism and Natheism: part II. An article by Professor Tony Pasquarello
in
the Winter 2003 edition of American Atheist Magazine.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0OBB/is_1_42/ai_114244516/pg_1
3) Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism (1998), an essay by Theodore M.
Drange.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/definition.html
4) On the Definition of the Words Atheism and Atheist. An essay by
Christopher Baba.
http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_1.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Better definitions for atheism and agnosticism |
20 Dec 2004 06:49:29 PM |
|
|
Here are a few links that are written by atheists that should be read
by all
the proponents of a "lack of belief" definition of atheism. Most are
multiple pages, be sure to read the complete link.
3) Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism (1998), an essay by Theodore
M.
Drange.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/definition.html
Excellent article.
4) On the Definition of the Words Atheism and Atheist. An essay by
Christopher Baba.
http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_1.htm
This is, of course, Editors own article. Here is a telling thing:
<quote>
But first I will try to illustrate the problem by using three groups of
people:
Group A believes that gods do not exist (atheists).
Group B neither believes that at least one god exists nor do they
believe that gods do not exist. This would include agnostics, babies,
and the undecided.
Group C believes that at least one god exists (theists).
<quote>
There is another way of aproaching the whole god question that all of
Editors thinking and argumentation doesnt even address.
What about Group D?:
Doesnt care whether or not god #34567 (or any other god) exists or not,
we are not going to worship anything as it is foolish, cowardly,
degrading and useless.
It will not make us wise or virtuous so we refuse to regard god #34567
(or any other god) as our god.
People in Group D would generally support the following:
"Making something your god corrupts the thing worshiped (if it exists)
and degrades the worshiper."
A person who belongs to group D doesnt believe in god the same way a
democrat doesnt believe in Kings and the same way a abolishionist
doesnt believe in Slavery and a libertarian doesnt believe in Hitler or
George Bush.
Kings and Masters and Dictators and lying corrupt politicians certainly
*exist* but the idea of being a *believer* in them, placing faith or
trust or loyalty in them, is repugnant to some free spirits.
A god is " a being worshiped as having divine power over nature and the
destiny of man". So if something exists - say the Emperor Caligula
then:
(1) He is a being.
(2) He has powers over the world beyond and above normal men.
So IF you worshiped him he would be a god (to you) *and* he would
exist.
Not everyone would *willingly* worship Caligula - although you would
need a great deal of courage to say so to his face and do something
about it.
Some gods do exist, some are pure imagination - I dont care..
An alternate (and ancient) meaning to atheist is:
Someone who does not willingly serve or worship gods or spirits.
There is an element of rebellion and defience in (this sense of)
atheism.
Remember:
A King is a King only as long as people are willing to believe in him -
a "king" whom no one respects and obeys is just another man - people
who wander about being an emperor in their opinion only tend to end up
in padded rooms - and the same is true for a god.
I know there are godless individuals who fit neither the (narrowly
construed) modern dictionary definition championed by Editor and the
churches, nor the "lack of belief in the *existence* of ..." definition
used by most alt.atheism members, nor are they necessarily agnostics.
They just dont see the wisdom nor necessity of worshiping gods, so they
dont.
They dont give a damn what might or might not exist that someone *else*
might consider worth worshiping - its *mere existence* strictly
irrelevant.
So there are, and I hope, always will be people who are dificult to
pigeon hole by a label backed by a one line definition.
I dont have a god whom I worship.
Whatever exists exists , whatever is knowable or unknowable is knowable
or unknowable.
I dont care.
I don't worship a god.
I am unclassifiable in many schemes - but the *closest* that any label
comes is "godless" - the original root of atheist.
If you like, I am atheist in what many dictionary definitions label as
the "archaic" or obsolete meaning - and none of the "modern" senses
fits.
(So it was premature to say it was obsolete - I have a use for it!)
That is:
I am not atheist.(In the strict sense)
I am not Theist.
I am not agnostic.
I am not a Deist.
I am not a pantheist.
I am not a pagan.
(append infinite list of what I am *NOT* ....)
I am (and I always have been) godless. An Infidel.
I am a skeptic, a rationalist (mostly), a materialist (generally), a
heretic (ie a freethinker)...
To know *why* I am godless you have to ask me - not the dictionary.
8-)
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Better definitions for atheism and agnosticism |
20 Dec 2004 10:17:25 PM |
|
|
On 20 Dec 2004 16:49:29 -0800, "richo" <spam2oblivion@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
Here are a few links that are written by atheists that should be read
by all
the proponents of a "lack of belief" definition of atheism. Most are
multiple pages, be sure to read the complete link.
3) Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism (1998), an essay by Theodore
M.
Drange.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/definition.html
Excellent article.
4) On the Definition of the Words Atheism and Atheist. An essay by
Christopher Baba.
http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_1.htm
This is, of course, Editors own article. Here is a telling thing:
<quote>
But first I will try to illustrate the problem by using three groups of
people:
Group A believes that gods do not exist (atheists).
Group B neither believes that at least one god exists nor do they
believe that gods do not exist. This would include agnostics, babies,
and the undecided.
Group C believes that at least one god exists (theists).
The problem is that B (which is closest) is still emotionally
prejudicial and rests of premises that don't even apply outside
theism.
It's not rocket science, but atheists are simply people who aren't
theist.
I acknowledge that people called theists exist. I am not among them.
Therefore I am atheist.
I do not derive a position of any kind from the belief objects of
somebody else's religion.
"God" isn't part of the generic atheist paradigm. Unfortunately
theists are.
<quote>
There is another way of aproaching the whole god question that all of
Editors thinking and argumentation doesnt even address.
What about Group D?:
Doesnt care whether or not god #34567 (or any other god) exists or not,
we are not going to worship anything as it is foolish, cowardly,
degrading and useless.
It will not make us wise or virtuous so we refuse to regard god #34567
(or any other god) as our god.
People in Group D would generally support the following:
"Making something your god corrupts the thing worshiped (if it exists)
and degrades the worshiper."
A person who belongs to group D doesnt believe in god the same way a
democrat doesnt believe in Kings and the same way a abolishionist
doesnt believe in Slavery and a libertarian doesnt believe in Hitler or
George Bush.
Kings and Masters and Dictators and lying corrupt politicians certainly
*exist* but the idea of being a *believer* in them, placing faith or
trust or loyalty in them, is repugnant to some free spirits.
A god is " a being worshiped as having divine power over nature and the
destiny of man". So if something exists - say the Emperor Caligula
then:
(1) He is a being.
(2) He has powers over the world beyond and above normal men.
So IF you worshiped him he would be a god (to you) *and* he would
exist.
Not everyone would *willingly* worship Caligula - although you would
need a great deal of courage to say so to his face and do something
about it.
Some gods do exist, some are pure imagination - I dont care..
An alternate (and ancient) meaning to atheist is:
Someone who does not willingly serve or worship gods or spirits.
There is an element of rebellion and defience in (this sense of)
atheism.
Remember:
A King is a King only as long as people are willing to believe in him -
a "king" whom no one respects and obeys is just another man - people
who wander about being an emperor in their opinion only tend to end up
in padded rooms - and the same is true for a god.
I know there are godless individuals who fit neither the (narrowly
construed) modern dictionary definition championed by Editor and the
churches, nor the "lack of belief in the *existence* of ..." definition
used by most alt.atheism members, nor are they necessarily agnostics.
They just dont see the wisdom nor necessity of worshiping gods, so they
dont.
They dont give a damn what might or might not exist that someone *else*
might consider worth worshiping - its *mere existence* strictly
irrelevant.
So there are, and I hope, always will be people who are dificult to
pigeon hole by a label backed by a one line definition.
I dont have a god whom I worship.
Whatever exists exists , whatever is knowable or unknowable is knowable
or unknowable.
I dont care.
I don't worship a god.
I am unclassifiable in many schemes - but the *closest* that any label
comes is "godless" - the original root of atheist.
If you like, I am atheist in what many dictionary definitions label as
the "archaic" or obsolete meaning - and none of the "modern" senses
fits.
(So it was premature to say it was obsolete - I have a use for it!)
That is:
I am not atheist.(In the strict sense)
I am not Theist.
I am not agnostic.
I am not a Deist.
I am not a pantheist.
I am not a pagan.
(append infinite list of what I am *NOT* ....)
I am (and I always have been) godless. An Infidel.
I am a skeptic, a rationalist (mostly), a materialist (generally), a
heretic (ie a freethinker)...
To know *why* I am godless you have to ask me - not the dictionary.
8-)
Mark.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Better definitions for atheism and agnosticism |
20 Dec 2004 10:27:53 AM |
|
|
On Fri 17 Dec 2004 06:17:35p, "Editor of EvilBible.com"
<Dont_Reply@Here.com> kicked back with a beer, ruminated at length, fell
asleep, woke up, lit up a joint, then fell asleep again after
thoughtfully blurting out:
[snip]
Cut the *****, Editor. Whatever the definition of atheism might be,
it's unquestionably not yours.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.
|
|
|
| User: "Editor of EvilBible.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Better definitions for atheism and agnosticism |
20 Dec 2004 01:07:44 PM |
|
|
"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95C56BD17593EMekkala@199.45.49.11...
On Fri 17 Dec 2004 06:17:35p, "Editor of EvilBible.com"
<Dont_Reply@Here.com> kicked back with a beer, ruminated at length, fell
asleep, woke up, lit up a joint, then fell asleep again after
thoughtfully blurting out:
[snip]
Cut the *****, Editor. Whatever the definition of atheism might be,
it's unquestionably not yours.
From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
"Atheist: one who believes that there is no deity"
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=atheist&x=12&y=17
From The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001:
Atheism: denial of the existence of God or gods and of any supernatural
existence, to be distinguished from agnosticism, which holds that the
existence cannot be proved.
http://www.bartleby.com/65/at/atheism.html
From Encyclopędia Britannica. 2004. Encyclopędia Britannica Online. 18 Jan.
2004
Atheism:
in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or
spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which
affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its
existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open
the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions
unanswered or unanswerable.
http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_4.htm
There are more definitions at my web site:
http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_1.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Better definitions for atheism and agnosticism |
20 Dec 2004 01:29:42 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 14:07:44 -0500, "Editor of EvilBible.com"
<Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote:
"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95C56BD17593EMekkala@199.45.49.11...
On Fri 17 Dec 2004 06:17:35p, "Editor of EvilBible.com"
<Dont_Reply@Here.com> kicked back with a beer, ruminated at length, fell
asleep, woke up, lit up a joint, then fell asleep again after
thoughtfully blurting out:
[snip]
Cut the *****, Editor. Whatever the definition of atheism might be,
it's unquestionably not yours.
From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
"Atheist: one who believes that there is no deity"
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=atheist&x=12&y=17
From The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001:
Atheism: denial of the existence of God or gods and of any supernatural
existence, to be distinguished from agnosticism, which holds that the
existence cannot be proved.
http://www.bartleby.com/65/at/atheism.html
Websters doesn't get to tell ME what MY position is. Especially when
it presumes there's something to deny.
Just like all "definitions" by theists it makes the totally
unjustified assumption that the theist's doctrinal premises apply to
peole outsid etheir religion.
And then invent a position we don't even have, even if they did apply.
From Encyclopędia Britannica. 2004. Encyclopędia Britannica Online. 18 Jan.
2004
And neither does Britannica.
Atheism:
in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or
spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which
affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its
existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open
the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions
unanswered or unanswerable.
http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_4.htm
Again, I'm not denying anything NOR am I agnostic about it.
It's merely part of the theist's paradigm, and they have to be
remarkably stupid to imagine that it even applies in the real world
outside their religion, let alone invent positions for people outside
it that presume it does. And then rudely insist that their
fabrications actually describe us.
There are more definitions at my web site:
http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_1.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Editor of EvilBible.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Better definitions for atheism and agnosticism |
20 Dec 2004 03:18:10 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:nm9es0takbjq0fftva38t9futh9s6mdcp5@4ax.com...
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 14:07:44 -0500, "Editor of EvilBible.com"
<Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote:
"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns95C56BD17593EMekkala@199.45.49.11...
On Fri 17 Dec 2004 06:17:35p, "Editor of EvilBible.com"
<Dont_Reply@Here.com> kicked back with a beer, ruminated at length, fell
asleep, woke up, lit up a joint, then fell asleep again after
thoughtfully blurting out:
[snip]
Cut the *****, Editor. Whatever the definition of atheism might be,
it's unquestionably not yours.
From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
"Atheist: one who believes that there is no deity"
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=atheist&x=12&y=17
From The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001:
Atheism: denial of the existence of God or gods and of any supernatural
existence, to be distinguished from agnosticism, which holds that the
existence cannot be proved.
http://www.bartleby.com/65/at/atheism.html
Websters doesn't get to tell ME what MY position is. Especially when
it presumes there's something to deny.
Just like all "definitions" by theists it makes the totally
unjustified assumption that the theist's doctrinal premises apply to
peole outsid etheir religion.
And then invent a position we don't even have, even if they did apply.
From Encyclopędia Britannica. 2004. Encyclopędia Britannica Online. 18
Jan.
2004
And neither does Britannica.
Atheism:
in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or
spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which
affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its
existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves
open
the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the
questions
unanswered or unanswerable.
http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_4.htm
Again, I'm not denying anything NOR am I agnostic about it.
It's merely part of the theist's paradigm, and they have to be
remarkably stupid to imagine that it even applies in the real world
outside their religion, let alone invent positions for people outside
it that presume it does. And then rudely insist that their
fabrications actually describe us.
In this thread I posted links from 4 atheists who disagree with you and
agree with me about the definition of "atheism". Three of them are (or
were) professors at major universities. Your delusion that they are stupid
and theists is absurd.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Better definitions for atheism and agnosticism |
20 Dec 2004 05:03:57 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 16:18:10 -0500, "Editor of EvilBible.com"
<Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote:
Again, I'm not denying anything NOR am I agnostic about it.
It's merely part of the theist's paradigm, and they have to be
remarkably stupid to imagine that it even applies in the real world
outside their religion, let alone invent positions for people outside
it that presume it does. And then rudely insist that their
fabrications actually describe us.
In this thread I posted links from 4 atheists who disagree with you and
agree with me about the definition of "atheism". Three of them are (or
were) professors at major universities. Your delusion that they are stupid
and theists is absurd.
What "delusion", moron?
Are you really so ignorant you think I have to change my position to
match what some ignorant professor thinks?
Why do you pretend that some professor who has fallen for the theists'
misrepresentation gets to define my POV for me?
Especially when he gets it wrong?
How about addressing why they got it wrong, instead of using the
fallacy of argument from authority?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Editor of EvilBible.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Better definitions for atheism and agnosticism |
20 Dec 2004 06:26:27 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:gcmes0dhugilt20pacpn1vi9ghknopnipf@4ax.com...
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 16:18:10 -0500, "Editor of EvilBible.com"
<Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote:
Again, I'm not denying anything NOR am I agnostic about it.
It's merely part of the theist's paradigm, and they have to be
remarkably stupid to imagine that it even applies in the real world
outside their religion, let alone invent positions for people outside
it that presume it does. And then rudely insist that their
fabrications actually describe us.
In this thread I posted links from 4 atheists who disagree with you and
agree with me about the definition of "atheism". Three of them are (or
were) professors at major universities. Your delusion that they are
stupid
and theists is absurd.
What "delusion", moron?
Do you have some sort of brain damage? Try reading the last sentence again
and look up any words you don't understand in a dictionary.
Are you really so ignorant you think I have to change my position to
match what some ignorant professor thinks?
Why do you pretend that some professor who has fallen for the theists'
misrepresentation gets to define my POV for me?
No one is telling you to change your incorrect position. We are just
telling you that you are incorrect and telling you why. You are welcome to
remain as dumb, ignorant, and incorrect as you want to be.
Especially when he gets it wrong?
How about addressing why they got it wrong, instead of using the
fallacy of argument from authority?
I did address why you are incorrect. Try reading the links I posted for a
change. I'll repeat them:
Here are a few links that are written by atheists that should be read by all
the proponents of a "lack of belief" definition of atheism. Most are
multiple pages, be sure to read the complete link.
1) Atheism and Natheism. An article by Professor Tony Pasquarello in the
Autumn 2003 edition of American Atheist Magazine.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0OBB/is_4_41/ai_111268789
2) Atheism and Natheism: part II. An article by Professor Tony Pasquarello
in
the Winter 2003 edition of American Atheist Magazine.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0OBB/is_1_42/ai_114244516/pg_1
3) Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism (1998), an essay by Professor
Theodore M.
Drange.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/definition.html
4) On the Definition of the Words Atheism and Atheist. An essay by
Christopher Baba.
http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_1.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Better definitions for atheism and agnosticism |
20 Dec 2004 10:12:09 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 19:26:27 -0500, "Editor of EvilBible.com"
<Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:gcmes0dhugilt20pacpn1vi9ghknopnipf@4ax.com...
On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 16:18:10 -0500, "Editor of EvilBible.com"
<Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote:
Again, I'm not denying anything NOR am I agnostic about it.
It's merely part of the theist's paradigm, and they have to be
remarkably stupid to imagine that it even applies in the real world
outside their religion, let alone invent positions for people outside
it that presume it does. And then rudely insist that their
fabrications actually describe us.
In this thread I posted links from 4 atheists who disagree with you and
agree with me about the definition of "atheism". Three of them are (or
were) professors at major universities. Your delusion that they are
stupid
and theists is absurd.
What "delusion", moron?
Do you have some sort of brain damage? Try reading the last sentence again
and look up any words you don't understand in a dictionary.
You obviously do, retard.
Are you really so ignorant you think I have to change my position to
match what some ignorant professor thinks?
Why do you pretend that some professor who has fallen for the theists'
misrepresentation gets to define my POV for me?
No one is telling you to change your incorrect position. We are just
telling you that you are incorrect and telling you why. You are welcome to
remain as dumb, ignorant, and incorrect as you want to be.
No, liar, YOU are incorrect.
I have already explained why you are wrong.
Once again. I am atheist. God isn't even part of me and my life
experience to reject, believe doesn't exist, be agnostic about or any
of the other positions assholes like you invent for me using some
ignorant proffessor as authority.
Especially when he gets it wrong?
How about addressing why they got it wrong, instead of using the
fallacy of argument from authority?
I did address why you are incorrect. Try reading the links I posted for a
change. I'll repeat them:
Here are a few links that are written by atheists that should be read by all
the proponents of a "lack of belief" definition of atheism. Most are
multiple pages, be sure to read the complete link.
Look, moron, however many phony "authorities" you cite, you and they
keep getting it wrong BECAUSE YOU AND THEY START FROM PRESUMPTIONS
THAT DON'T EVEN APPLY OUTSIDE THEISM TO COME UP WITH POSITIONS I DON'T
EVEN HAVE..
Which word are you pretending you don't understand?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Belief - was summat else |
18 Dec 2004 08:10:28 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 19:17:35 -0500, "Editor of EvilBible.com"
<Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote:
"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in message
news:1qxznbcu8azyy$.nkpv0rjlfcl2.dlg@40tude.net...
I think that www.infidels.org (see:
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html) describes atheism and
agnosticism in terms that are not quite straightforward and that
consequently create a lot of noise in alt.atheism. The definition in
question is the often quoted "Atheism is characterized by an absence of
belief in the existence of gods". <snip>
Here are a few links that are written by atheists that should be read by all
the proponents of a "lack of belief" definition of atheism. Most are
multiple pages, be sure to read the complete link.
1) Atheism and Natheism. An article by Professor Tony Pasquarello in the
Autumn 2003 edition of American Atheist Magazine.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0OBB/is_4_41/ai_111268789
This author clearly belongs to the never use a sentence when a
paragraph or even a chapter will do, I gave up ater the first page
2) Atheism and Natheism: part II. An article by Professor Tony Pasquarello
in
the Winter 2003 edition of American Atheist Magazine.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0OBB/is_1_42/ai_114244516/pg_1
3) Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism (1998), an essay by Theodore M.
Drange.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/definition.html
This was concise and to the point and provoked much though
4) On the Definition of the Words Atheism and Atheist. An essay by
Christopher Baba.
http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_1.htm
Exhausted after last one!
One important word not covered here was 'belief' as this clearly
has different meanings to different people.
I take belief to mean acceptance of something without reasonable
evidence thus "I believe the Loch Ness Monster exists"
Whereas evidence or reasonable proof renders belief unecessary.
Thus if the Loch Ness Monster surfaces and poses for photographs
and submits itself to examination by a vet I would say
"I know the Loch Ness monster exists"
Thus a theist has to evidence of a god and claims "I believe there is
a god!"
whilst an atheist say "I don believe there is a god"
If god then appeared and demonstrated it existed beyond
reasonable doubt the theist would say "I know their is a god" and
the atheist would still be able to say "I do not believe their
is a god because I know there is a god" I would suspect that
the theist would continue to say I believe god exists even if
he knew god existed from gods appearance.
There is also the statement
"Do you believe IN god" which seems to be used interchangably
with
"Do you believe there IS a god"
The first is a clever catch question which presupposes yes
to the second question first then asks whether you believe in
some unstated aspect of this god. What is it of this god
we are supposed to be believing in given this god exists?
Thus to me the Question 'do you believe in god' is
meaningless unless I first accept there is a god. If
you answer no the believer goes away happy that you
have accepted this god but do not believe whatever
the unstated aspect was. If you answer yes you have
signed a blank belief cheque!
--
Les Hellawell
greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "Scot McDermid" |
|
| Title: Re: Belief - was summat else |
18 Dec 2004 09:00:52 AM |
|
|
"Les Hellawell" <myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote in message
news:v4d8s0t2la31fa176jbitmclfacfrhese6@4ax.com...
One important word not covered here was 'belief' as this clearly
has different meanings to different people.
Yes, "belief" is used differently by different people and in different
circumstances. For example, anyone who has any formal training
in philosophy, ie. "Philosophy 101", will tell you that in philosophy
believe means "to accept as true".
(By the way, you will find "to accept as true" as one of the definitions
for believe, in any dictionary.)
To believe something when you have evidence or justification
is a "justified belief".
To believe something when you have no evidence nor justification
is an "unjustified belief".
In philosophy, belief and justification are orthogonal. Not
mutually exclusive.
.
|
|
|
| User: "j" |
|
| Title: Re: Belief - was summat else |
22 Dec 2004 11:46:23 AM |
|
|
Scot McDermid wrote:
One important word not covered here was 'belief' as this clearly
has different meanings to different people. Yes, "belief" is used
differently by different people and in different circumstances.
For example, anyone who has any formal training in philosophy, ie.
"Philosophy 101" ...
I have no formal training in philosophy, so I want to get your opinion
on this. It seems to me that in the fields of science and philosophy
the terms naturalism/supernaturalism are used instead. This seems to
avoid the problems with Buddaism (no deity), etc. I don't suggest that
atheist/theist be replaced with these other terms, but rather that in
certain situations one set would seem to be more appropriate than the
other.
P.S. I already know Christopher A. Lee's opinion on this, so I would
like to see other people's opinion on this.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Belief - was summat else |
22 Dec 2004 11:04:45 PM |
|
|
On 22 Dec 2004 09:46:23 -0800, "j" <joseph707@hotmail.com> said in
alt.atheism:
I have no formal training in philosophy, so I want to get your opinion
on this. It seems to me that in the fields of science and philosophy
the terms naturalism/supernaturalism are used instead. This seems to
avoid the problems with Buddaism (no deity), etc. I don't suggest that
atheist/theist be replaced with these other terms, but rather that in
certain situations one set would seem to be more appropriate than the
other.
They're appropriate when discussing naturalism/supernaturalism, but
not in place of atheism or theism.
--
"He who joyfully marches to music in rank and file has already earned my
contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him, the
spinal cord would fully suffice."
- Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Belief - was summat else |
22 Dec 2004 07:38:23 PM |
|
|
j wrote:
Scot McDermid wrote:
One important word not covered here was 'belief' as this clearly
has different meanings to different people. Yes, "belief" is used
differently by different people and in different circumstances.
For example, anyone who has any formal training in philosophy, ie.
"Philosophy 101" ...
I have no formal training in philosophy, so I want to get your opinion
on this. It seems to me that in the fields of science and philosophy
the terms naturalism/supernaturalism are used instead. This seems to
avoid the problems with Buddaism (no deity), etc. I don't suggest that
atheist/theist be replaced with these other terms, but rather that in
certain situations one set would seem to be more appropriate than the
other.
P.S. I already know Christopher A. Lee's opinion on this, so I would
like to see other people's opinion on this.
There was a time where there was no differentiation between natural and
supernatural.
This started to be an issue about 2600 BCE when Thales started philosphy as
we know it. The early philosphers did not believe things were run by gods
on a daily basis, but that gods set up the Universe with rules and
mechanisms, that ran themselves.
The idea was to investigate and learn abdout and understand these things.
The term used was phusis, understood by them as meaning nature, and
lead to our word physics.
This lead to many ideas, including atoms, and the naturalism of atomists
like Democritus and others.
This lead to discussions of what are such things as gods and souls made of.
Stoicism had a monist, physical idea of this all was matter, but of two
kinds, souls and gods were made of a finer grade of matter than material
world kind of matter.
Others rejected such ideas for a more or less idealist or dualistic
idea of the nature of the Universe. Christianity picked up that
idea from neo-Platonism because it was consonant with Biblical
thought that saw things as dualistic, matter and spirit.
Platos idea or ideal forms became the basis of supernturalism, god
as the supreme ideal form.
Because naturalism was highly theoretical, it wasn't that much of a problem.
It started being a problem when things like physics and chemistry were put
on a sound basis and started taking over from natural philosophy.
The dividing issues between natural and supernatural grew sharp.
Ideas like life as chemistry defeated vitalism, physics made
a divine world of godly whims hard to accept.
Long ago, there was no real sharp division, there has been since
the 1700's. Naturalism is the basic assumption now of science.
Supernaturalism is not in evidence and science in facts has worked
because it has rejected all supernaturalism.
Supernaturalism be it occultism, mysticism or religous supernaturalism no
longer explains anything and never did manage in retrospect to be right
about anything in the natural realm they tried to explain.
And what is supernaturalism? As time goes on it gets fuzzier.
Naturalism has been defining itself, and supernaturalism is now
only that that is not natural. With quantum physics, naturalism
is getting far beyond naturalism as it was understood until 1900.
Supernaturalism has now shrunken to the god of the gaps.
The problem is for the supernaturalist, to define supernaturalism,
without having to define naturalism.
One way is to adopt idealism. But that is a metaphysical dead end,
as its unprovable, its a philosphical eqivalent of solipism.
And as such is easily ignored as it offers nothing that means anything.
One can just as easily adopt realism. Which works in that
realism, the underlying assumption of science and naturalism,
works and has proven fruitful as a working assumption.
And once a supernaturalist has defined supernaturalism, proving its
true is another tall order.
Which is where it all stands today.
Naturally, its really a lot more complex than this potted
examination of the problem, but the place to dive in here would
be the phenomenon of the god of the gaps.
Here is where the theist problem of supernaturalism comes
into plain view.
We don't seem to need a god to explain anything and we don't
need supernaturalism to explain anything.
Science is basically bottom up, starting with basic facts and
does not worry or need ultimate metaphysical assumptions to
continue. By doing things this way, metaphysical assumptions
have mainly been shown irrelevant. Supernaturalism relies
totally on such metaphysical assumptions.
The real break began when Galileo a physics professor, threw out all
physics of his day as loaded with nonsense and bad methodology and started
physics from scratch on an experimental basis. He invented science
as we know it as a method.
All metaphysical assumptions, the Greek style of physics,
making assumptions and reasoning about them, top down, was
thrown out.
Science now attempts to make as few assumptions as possible,
especially metaphysical. This is the explicit underlying basis
of Neils Bohr's Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics.
You can really only talk about what you can measure.
That is what you can experiment with and test.
Bottom up science.
This esentially is an attempt to throw metaphysics out
of quantum physics.
And thus does away with metaphysics implicitly.
Other aspects of science, biology, chemisty, are explicitly
mechanical. No metaphysics, no supernatural needed.
As these things encroach on quantum physics, quantum chemistry
in biochemistry for example, metaphysics is banned by
the Copenhagen interpretation in science.
And any hint of supernaturalism.
Which is where we are today.
Supernaturalism is a idea hard to define with no
real need and no home. Its only of interest to
those worried about finding a place for god in
and all they can do is make assertions that
they can't prove and are hard to mesh with
science.
--
Dance, monkeys, dance!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Better definitions for atheism and agnosticism |
17 Dec 2004 06:23:16 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 19:17:35 -0500, "Editor of EvilBible.com"
<Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote:
"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in message
news:1qxznbcu8azyy$.nkpv0rjlfcl2.dlg@40tude.net...
I think that www.infidels.org (see:
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html) describes atheism and
agnosticism in terms that are not quite straightforward and that
consequently create a lot of noise in alt.atheism. The definition in
question is the often quoted "Atheism is characterized by an absence of
belief in the existence of gods". <snip>
Here are a few links that are written by atheists that should be read by all
the proponents of a "lack of belief" definition of atheism. Most are
multiple pages, be sure to read the complete link.
Except of course that the reason we use it is because it actually
describes us instead of moulding our point of view to fit what
somebody else imagines it should be.
What a strange concept.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Editor of EvilBible.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Better definitions for atheism and agnosticism |
17 Dec 2004 06:45:20 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:c1u6s01qn8bru34f7k7aqakab2m214aip2@4ax.com...
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 19:17:35 -0500, "Editor of EvilBible.com"
<Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote:
"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in message
news:1qxznbcu8azyy$.nkpv0rjlfcl2.dlg@40tude.net...
I think that www.infidels.org (see:
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html) describes atheism and
agnosticism in terms that are not quite straightforward and that
consequently create a lot of noise in alt.atheism. The definition in
question is the often quoted "Atheism is characterized by an absence of
belief in the existence of gods". <snip>
Here are a few links that are written by atheists that should be read by
all
the proponents of a "lack of belief" definition of atheism. Most are
multiple pages, be sure to read the complete link.
Except of course that the reason we use it is because it actually
describes us instead of moulding our point of view to fit what
somebody else imagines it should be.
What a strange concept.
Why do you try to actually read what is written? The 6 minutes between the
time I posted and the time you responded was not enough time to read even
one of these links.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Better definitions for atheism and agnosticism |
18 Dec 2004 01:21:08 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 19:17:35 -0500, "Editor of EvilBible.com"
<Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote:
"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in message
news:1qxznbcu8azyy$.nkpv0rjlfcl2.dlg@40tude.net...
I think that www.infidels.org (see:
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html) describes atheism and
agnosticism in terms that are not quite straightforward and that
consequently create a lot of noise in alt.atheism. The definition in
question is the often quoted "Atheism is characterized by an absence of
belief in the existence of gods". <snip>
Here are a few links that are written by atheists that should be read by all
the proponents of a "lack of belief" definition of atheism. Most are
multiple pages, be sure to read the complete link.
Oh ***** off you brain dead moron.
[]
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
| User: "Editor of EvilBible.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Better definitions for atheism and agnosticism |
18 Dec 2004 02:38:46 PM |
|
|
"stoney" <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:jo09s0l89b03makihfmnl0noursd5jg0nj@4ax.com...
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 19:17:35 -0500, "Editor of EvilBible.com"
<Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote:
"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in message
news:1qxznbcu8azyy$.nkpv0rjlfcl2.dlg@40tude.net...
I think that www.infidels.org (see:
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html) describes atheism and
agnosticism in terms that are not quite straightforward and that
consequently create a lot of noise in alt.atheism. The definition in
question is the often quoted "Atheism is characterized by an absence of
belief in the existence of gods". <snip>
Here are a few links that are written by atheists that should be read by
all
the proponents of a "lack of belief" definition of atheism. Most are
multiple pages, be sure to read the complete link.
Oh ***** off you brain dead moron.
***** YOU *****!
You don't even attempt to have intelligent discussions. Apparently the last
two brain cells you have left are reserved for insulting people in
newsgroups. Get a fucking life, *****.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: Better definitions for atheism and agnosticism |
17 Dec 2004 06:12:55 AM |
|
|
"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in message
news:1qxznbcu8azyy$.nkpv0rjlfcl2.dlg@40tude.net...
I think that www.infidels.org (see:
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html) describes atheism and
agnosticism in terms that are not quite straightforward and that
consequently create a lot of noise in alt.atheism. The definition in
question is the often quoted "Atheism is characterized by an absence of
belief in the existence of gods". I think this definition appears to be
motivated by:
<snip>
Thankk you so much for figuring it all out for us.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Better definitions for atheism and agnosticism |
17 Dec 2004 11:27:44 AM |
|
|
"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in message
news:1qxznbcu8azyy$.nkpv0rjlfcl2.dlg@40tude.net...
I think that www.infidels.org (see:
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html) describes atheism and
agnosticism in terms that are not quite straightforward and that
consequently create a lot of noise in alt.atheism. The definition in
question is the often quoted "Atheism is characterized by an absence of
belief in the existence of gods". I think this definition appears to be
motivated by:
a) The desire to find a definition that covers both atheism and
agnosticism. This is not quite fair to agnosticism I think, as it wouldn't
be fair if a theist were to define theism as the non-denial of the
existence of gods.
b) The desire, as a practical matter, to avoid the need for atheists to
justify their position. Even though all propositions require
justification,
it is fair that the one who claims the default and "obvious" position
should not carry the same burden to justify her claim as the one who makes
otherworldly claims. Even though I agree with this desire I think a
definition is not the place to enforce it.
So what should we call someone who, when confronted with the statement "God
exists" responds "I don't believe you."?
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Better definitions for atheism and agnosticism |
26 Dec 2004 11:18:48 AM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in message
news:1qxznbcu8azyy$.nkpv0rjlfcl2.dlg@40tude.net...
I think that www.infidels.org (see:
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html) describes atheism
and
agnosticism in terms that are not quite straightforward and that
consequently create a lot of noise in alt.atheism. The definition
in
question is the often quoted "Atheism is characterized by an
absence of
belief in the existence of gods". I think this definition appears
to be
motivated by:
a) The desire to find a definition that covers both atheism and
agnosticism. This is not quite fair to agnosticism I think, as it
wouldn't
be fair if a theist were to define theism as the non-denial of the
existence of gods.
b) The desire, as a practical matter, to avoid the need for
atheists to
justify their position. Even though all propositions require
justification,
it is fair that the one who claims the default and "obvious"
position
should not carry the same burden to justify her claim as the one
who makes
otherworldly claims. Even though I agree with this desire I think a
definition is not the place to enforce it.
So what should we call someone who, when confronted with the
statement "God
exists" responds "I don't believe you."?
Ignorant.
=====
RC
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Better definitions for atheism and agnosticism |
27 Dec 2004 02:08:05 PM |
|
|
<rcman777@excite.com> wrote in message
news:1104081528.728574.278810@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"Dianelos Georgoudis" <dianelos@tecapro.com> wrote in message
news:1qxznbcu8azyy$.nkpv0rjlfcl2.dlg@40tude.net...
I think that www.infidels.org (see:
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html) describes atheism
and
agnosticism in terms that are not quite straightforward and that
consequently create a lot of noise in alt.atheism. The definition
in
question is the often quoted "Atheism is characterized by an
absence of
belief in the existence of gods". I think this definition appears
to be
motivated by:
a) The desire to find a definition that covers both atheism and
agnosticism. This is not quite fair to agnosticism I think, as it
wouldn't
be fair if a theist were to define theism as the non-denial of the
existence of gods.
b) The desire, as a practical matter, to avoid the need for
atheists to
justify their position. Even though all propositions require
justification,
it is fair that the one who claims the default and "obvious"
position
should not carry the same burden to justify her claim as the one
who makes
otherworldly claims. Even though I agree with this desire I think a
definition is not the place to enforce it.
So what should we call someone who, when confronted with the
statement "God
exists" responds "I don't believe you."?
Ignorant.
Oh! Then I have a GREAT used car to sell you! It's invisible and flies! It
can come to you at the snap of a finger and wisk you anywhere you want to
go. Its glove compartment is always stuffed with hundred dollar bills, and
it makes a mean screwdriver. I'll let you have it for $200 dollars.
Don't believe me? Boy, how ignorant can you get!
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Better definitions for atheism and agnosticism |
20 Dec 2004 07:46:26 PM |
|
|
Dianelos Georgoudis Dec 17, 4:10 am wrote:
I think that www.infidels.org (see:
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html) describes atheism and
agnosticism in terms that are not quite straightforward and that
consequently create a lot of noise in alt.atheism. The definition in
question is the often quoted "Atheism is characterized by an absence
of
belief in the existence of gods". I think this definition appears to
be
motivated by:
a) The desire to find a definition that covers both atheism and
agnosticism. This is not quite fair to agnosticism I think, as it
wouldn't
be fair if a theist were to define theism as the non-denial of the
existence of gods.
b) The desire, as a practical matter, to avoid the need for atheists
to
justify their position. Even though all propositions require
justification,
it is fair that the one who claims the default and "obvious" position
should not carry the same burden to justify her claim as the one who
makes
otherworldly claims. Even though I agree with this desire I think a
definition is not the place to enforce it.
In this post I suggest what I believe are better definitions. I start
by
showing some failings in the application of www.infidels.org
definition.
According to this definition the following statements are true:
1. A new-born baby is an atheist.
2. An imbecile in a psychiatric hospital is an atheist.
3. A Roman Catholic Pope who is brain-dead but kept alive on life
support
is an atheist.
A Rock is a "non smoker".
A Rock is Bald.
Yet a Rock cannot choose to smoke and rocks do not, as a general rule,
grow hair.
Therefore saying a particular rock is a bald non-smoker says nothing
interesting about the rock.
There is nothing wrong with the definition of either "non-smoker" or
"bald" however, the absurdity lies in applying these terms to rocks.
Similarly while it is perfectly, trivially, true that new borns, the
brain dead and unconcious popes do not worship and have belief and
faith in God (or some other gods) it is not interesting or noteworthy.
What is interesting is when a being *capable* of worship and belief in
God doesnt worship or believe.
Similarly it is interesting when a being capable of growing hair -
lacks hair.
If your old english sheep dog looses all his hair it may indicate
something is going on that is worth thinking about.
The real reason for the "lack of belief" idea is that worship of God
(Or Zeus or Quetzecoatal) is not something that belongs naturaly to
human existence Except as a taught or learned or aquired thing.
There are inate *tendencies* in humans that express themselves through
religious beliefs. Religious and spiritual beliefs are nearly universal
to humans.
Yet belief in and worship of any particular or specific God or gods is
engendered by ones parents and community. People born in a Hindu
Village do not spontaneously become Jewish or Catholic at an early age
if they never encounter these ideas.
So the idea behind the "lack of belief in" definition is to reflect
this reality - not your (a) or (b).
That is one needs reasons or motivations to become a believer or
worshiper of God or gods - usually this reason is that you are trined
from a very early age to so believe (before your rational faculties are
fully developed).
The default state fro humans is to be godless as the defualt state or
rocks is to be hairless - the differnce eing that humans (generally)
posses the potential for belief.
Atheists are people who after encountering the concept of god and
reasoning
about it arrive at the conclusion that no such beings or entities
exist.
Then I am not an atheist.
And yet I am godless - an infidel.
Not all atheists are alike. Some of them simply think that gods
probably or
very probably do not exist; others, for all practical purposes, are
certain
that gods do not exist.
What if you dont believ in worshiping gods as a matter of principle?
It is possible to worship (make your god) idols and emperors.
The fact that idols and emperors exist is immaterial - completely
irrelavent - to my distaste at the idea of worship.
So I could believe in the existence of any number of gods and yet
refuse to worship refuse to place my faith trust and obedience in said
god.
What is a god that no-one believes in?
By definition it isnt a god - its a man or an idol or a force of
nature.
Belief makes a god a god.
Some atheists studied the notion of god in depth
before arriving at their conclusion.
Other atheists judged the basic idea
of gods so absurd that it did not deserve such effort on their part.
Atheists should not be confused with agnostics.
Agnostics are people who after encountering the concept of god and
reasoning about it fail to reach any conclusion that would give them
some
confidence in the existence or non-existence of gods.
Again I dont care - whatever is knowable is knowable whatever is
unknowable is unknowable.
I dont worship anything, known *or* unknown.
So agnosticism is irrelavent to me (whatever name you wish to give my
position).
Some agnostics
believe that it is in principle impossible to come to such a
conclusion
based on reason alone. Agnostics refuse to believe anything not based
on
reason alone, so in this case they refuse to believe either in the
existence or the non-existence of gods. An agnostic keeps the same
distance
from theists and atheists, and claims allegiance to neither group,
even
though she recognizes that agnostics and atheist are alike in their
insistence that only reason based on evidence can justify belief. .
People who insist that belief be based on reason are known as
Rationalists.
(Some Theists considered themselves Rationalists - most decided that
reason alone is insufficient for belief - that revalation and faith is
also necessary)
People who insist that belief be based upon empirical evidence and
reason are known as Empiricists - so agnosticism seems wholly
redundant.
Agnosticism is certainly irrelavent to belief (and anything else as far
as I can determine).
There are many concepts of gods. Sometimes it is assumed by default
that
any god must be personal, i.e. be a conscious being of free will, and
not
some kind of impersonal principle.
I am not interested in rejecting impersonal gods - if they cant even
bother showing up for work then I cant be bothered disbelieving in
them.
8-)
This can give rise to some confusion as
one can claim to be both religious and atheist, if one's religion does
not
claim the existence of a personal god (but rather of an impersonal
absolute
principle) as is the case in Buddhism and Taoism, for example.
I have nothing against religion -(a system of beliefs and pratices that
define a persons sense of meaning and place in the universe) I just
hate the idea of worshiping gods..
Most atheists and agnostics find a common denominator in all gods and
hold
the same position towards all gods.
I am not an atheist (in your sense) or an agnostic but i certainly have
the same attitude towards all gods.
I am not going to be a believer in any of them.
I am an infidel (faithless - i do not put my faith or trust in any
spirit or demon no matter how great and powerful.)
For completeness I would like to cover theism too:
For completeness you should cover those that are not atheist, agnostic
or theist as defined by yourself.
8-)
Religion is a vague concept that expresses the organization of the
common
beliefs and that a group of people hold about ultimate reality, which
they
perceive to be larger or deeper ordered than physical reality as
understood
by science. The concept of religion also covers the customs,
literature,
temples, and symbols that people establish to celebrate their common
beliefs. As we saw, not all religions are theistic religions.
Non theistic religion is certainly possible.
If I ever develop or adopt a religion it will be a godless one.
(Unless senility and feeble mindedness takes me over)
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dianelos Georgoudis" |
|
| Title: Re: Better definitions for atheism and agnosticism |
23 Dec 2004 08:58:55 AM |
|
|
On 20 Dec 2004 17:46:26 -0800, richo wrote:
[snip]
What is interesting is when a being *capable* of worship and belief in
God doesnt worship or believe.
Similarly it is interesting when a being capable of growing hair -
lacks hair.
If your old english sheep dog looses all his hair it may indicate
something is going on that is worth thinking about.
The real reason for the "lack of belief" idea is that worship of God
(Or Zeus or Quetzecoatal) is not something that belongs naturaly to
human existence Except as a taught or learned or aquired thing.
There are inate *tendencies* in humans that express themselves through
religious beliefs. Religious and spiritual beliefs are nearly universal
to humans.
Yet belief in and worship of any particular or specific God or gods is
engendered by ones parents and community. People born in a Hindu
Village do not spontaneously become Jewish or Catholic at an early age
if they never encounter these ideas.
It seems that you equate belief and worship - this is not so. Belief is
realizing that God exists. As for worship, personally I feel no need to
worship God either. Nor do I think that God needs or desires our
worshipping her. I think people in the past have projected unto their gods
their own needs and desires: to be the only one who counts, to command
others, to punish those who disobey, to have others adorate them, etc. Or
maybe they observed the behavior of their kings and thought that God, being
an even greater king, must have similar desires only much more so. Who
knows? People have been wrong about the planets for a long time, but this
has not affected the reality of them.
So the idea behind the "lack of belief in" definition is to reflect
this reality - not your (a) or (b).
That is one needs reasons or motivations to become a believer or
worshiper of God or gods - usually this reason is that you are trined
from a very early age to so believe (before your rational faculties are
fully developed).
The default state fro humans is to be godless as the defualt state or
rocks is to be hairless - the differnce eing that humans (generally)
posses the potential for belief.
If we possess the potential for belief and have a innate tendency towards
religion (as you write above "Religious and spiritual beliefs are nearly
universal to humans.") then I am not quite sure what you mean when you say
that the default state of humans is to be godless. If you were to put a
bunch of children on an island and had only machines take care and educate
them my guess is that they would nonetheless become superstitious and then
create some concept of a supernatural being that controls events. It seems
to me that atheism does require some kind of discipline to achieve and
maintain.
Atheists are people who after encountering the concept of god and
reasoning
about it arrive at the conclusion that no such beings or entities
exist.
Then I am not an atheist.
You mean you have not thought about this matter, or that you have not
arrived at the conclusion that no gods exist?
And yet I am godless - an infidel.
Not all atheists are alike. Some of them simply think that gods
probably or
very probably do not exist; others, for all practical purposes, are
certain
that gods do not exist.
What if you dont believ in worshiping gods as a matter of principle?
I would say that if you believe that some god exists then you are a theist
no matter whether you feel like worshipping this god or not. Or maybe I
don't understand what you mean. The basic question is whether one believes
that some god exist or not. If one believes that some god exists then and
only then one has to worry about one's relationship to this god.
.
|
|
|
| User: "richo" |
|
| Title: Re: Better definitions for atheism and agnosticism |
26 Dec 2004 07:47:05 AM |
|
|
Dianelos Georgoudis Dec 23, 6:58 am
On 20 Dec 2004 17:46:26 -0800, richo wrote:
[snip]
What is interesting is when a being *capable* of worship and belief
in
God doesnt worship or believe.
Similarly it is interesting when a being capable of growing hair -
lacks hair.
If your old english sheep dog looses all his hair it may indicate
something is going on that is worth thinking about.
The real reason for the "lack of belief" idea is that worship of God
(Or Zeus or Quetzecoatal) is not something that belongs naturaly to
human existence Except as a taught or learned or aquired thing.
There are inate *tendencies* in humans that express themselves
through
religious beliefs. Religious and spiritual beliefs are nearly
universal
to humans.
Yet belief in and worship of any particular or specific God or gods
is
engendered by ones parents and community. People born in a Hindu
Village do not spontaneously become Jewish or Catholic at an early
age
if they never encounter these ideas.
It seems that you equate belief and worship -
Yes.
this is not so.
I think you mean It is not *necessarily* so.
(You don't get to speak for me.)
The word posseses several perfectly legitimate meanings.
When person A says "I believe in Jesus" and person B says "I believe it
is half past two"
Then they are using the word "believe" in two very different senses.
When talking about religious belief I use "believe" in the sense
appropriate for discussing such belief.
When someone says "I believe in my brother" they mean they have faith,
trust, hope in their brother - not that they think he exists (although
that is probably also true!)
You can generally derive which sense of a word is being used by its
context.
Belief is
realizing that God exists.
That is belief in one sense (the sense that is unimportant in the
context of religious belief.)
For example I could (theoretically) be convinced of the existence of
Jesus (the man) but that would not in itself make me a Christian (a
believer in Jesus the Christ - Jesus as *my* God).
The *physical* existence of a god is not enough to automatically result
in *belief* in the god in the sense of "having faith in".
As for worship, personally I feel no need to
worship God either.
If everyone felt the same way it would cease to be a god at all.
(check the dictionary)
Nor do I think that God needs or desires our
worshipping her.
I don't care.
I am not trying to be rude here - I am just telling you it isnt
important to me in any way.
I think people in the past have projected unto their gods
their own needs and desires: to be the only one who counts, to command
others, to punish those who disobey, to have others adorate them, etc.
Yes. That's what gods are for.
Or
maybe they observed the behavior of their kings and thought that God,
being
an even greater king, must have similar desires only much more so.
That's what I believe.
(See if you can guess which sense I just used then 8-) )
Who
knows? People have been wrong about the planets for a long time, but
this
has not affected the reality of them.
How do you know people are "wrong" about imagining God as a petty
tyrant?
How *can* you be wrong about your own God?
It's your creation.
So the idea behind the "lack of belief in" definition is to reflect
this reality - not your (a) or (b).
That is one needs reasons or motivations to become a believer or
worshiper of God or gods - usually this reason is that you are
trined
from a very early age to so believe (before your rational faculties
are
fully developed).
The default state fro humans is to be godless as the defualt state
or
rocks is to be hairless - the differnce eing that humans (generally)
posses the potential for belief.
If we possess the potential for belief and have a innate tendency
towards
religion (as you write above "Religious and spiritual beliefs are
nearly
universal to humans.") then I am not quite sure what you mean when you
say
that the default state of humans is to be godless.
I cannot think of any simpler way of saying it.
Sorry.
If you were to put a
bunch of children on an island and had only machines take care and
educate
them my guess is that they would nonetheless become superstitious >and
then
create some concept of a supernatural being that controls events.
Yeah me too.
It seems
to me that atheism does require some kind of discipline to achieve and
maintain.
For some it takes a degree of effort to break away from their former
belief.
I have never believed, so it took me precisely zero effort.
So obviously "it depends".
(I did try in my teens to make the effort to believe (for
emotional/social reasons - many of my friends became "born again" ) -
but I couldn't do it.)
Atheists are people who after encountering the concept of god and
reasoning
about it arrive at the conclusion that no such beings or entities
exist.
Then I am not an atheist.
You mean you have not thought about this matter, or that you have not
arrived at the conclusion that no gods exist?
The latter.
I have thought, read and argued about gods and religeous beliefs for
about 40 years now.
And yet I am godless - an infidel.
Not all atheists are alike. Some of them simply think that gods
probably or
very probably do not exist; others, for all practical purposes, are
certain
that gods do not exist.
What if you dont believ in worshiping gods as a matter of principle?
I would say that if you believe that some god exists then you are a
theist
no matter whether you feel like worshipping this god or not.
Then simply by acknowledging the existence of the Sun or the Emperor
Augustus (both of which have been gods) then I am a theist?
I think that is obviously crazy. (and wrong)
Or maybe I
don't understand what you mean.
The second one.
8-)
< The basic question is whether one believes
that some god exist or not.
With all due respect you dont get to decide for me what is important or
basic - I do.
That certainly isnt the question that interests me.
The basic question for me is "do I make something my god".
I have decided that having gods will not make me wise or good. So I am
not interested in "believing" in any gods.
If one believes that some god exists then and
only then one has to worry about one's relationship to this god.
The Sun exists - and I don't worship it - it isnt my god no matter if 4
billon other people *want* it to be god - that's entirely their own
business and good luck to them...
The Empeoror Hirohito existed and I would not worship him.
Same goes for everything that exists (or doesnt exit).
So *existence* is the least interesting aspect of divinity.
It's not worth expending intelectual/emotional/moral effort on.
Mark.
.
|
| | |
