|
|
| User: "FreeThink" |
|
| Title: Re: Conditions Required to be an Athiest? |
14 Jan 2005 02:09:23 AM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
"FreeThink" <zeno7772004@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105679042.172046.80000@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Are these two positions required to be an atheist?
1) Theists practice presumption. Athiests do not.
2) The term 'God' is meaningless because it's definitions are not
relevant in any way.
Neither of these two positions are required to be an atheist.
Lack of belief in gods is all that's required.
You don't even have to have ever heard of gods.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
If one has heard of a God concept(s) do you think #2 is compatible with
being an atheist?
How could one reject God concept(s) without settling on some
definition(s) of how they are defined?
If #2 is not practiced by an athiest is #1 possible?
Would it be valid for an athiest to say the non-existance of God(s) is
an absolute truth?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Conditions Required to be an Athiest? |
14 Jan 2005 02:49:16 AM |
|
|
"FreeThink" <zeno7772004@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105686292.444581.64070@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"FreeThink" <zeno7772004@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105679042.172046.80000@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Are these two positions required to be an atheist?
1) Theists practice presumption. Athiests do not.
2) The term 'God' is meaningless because it's definitions are not
relevant in any way.
Neither of these two positions are required to be an atheist.
Lack of belief in gods is all that's required.
You don't even have to have ever heard of gods.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
If one has heard of a God concept(s) do you think #2 is compatible with
being an atheist?
Compatable, but not required.
How could one reject God concept(s) without settling on some
definition(s) of how they are defined?
If a god concept is not defined, then there is nothing to reject.
If #2 is not practiced by an athiest is #1 possible?
Sure. The theist says "God exists!" and all the atheist has to say in
response is "I don't believe you."
Would it be valid for an athiest to say the non-existance of God(s) is
an absolute truth?
Only if he had a really amazing argument.
But I submit that one can make bold statements about specific sufficently
defined god concepts that provide testable claims. If the test turns out
negative, then that particular god concept is contradicted by facts. That
particular god cannot exist.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "MG" |
|
| Title: Re: Conditions Required to be an Athiest? |
14 Jan 2005 06:17:08 AM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
"FreeThink" <zeno7772004@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105686292.444581.64070@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"FreeThink" <zeno7772004@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105679042.172046.80000@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Are these two positions required to be an atheist?
1) Theists practice presumption. Athiests do not.
2) The term 'God' is meaningless because it's definitions are not
relevant in any way.
Neither of these two positions are required to be an atheist.
Lack of belief in gods is all that's required.
You don't even have to have ever heard of gods.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
If one has heard of a God concept(s) do you think #2 is compatible with
being an atheist?
Compatable, but not required.
How could one reject God concept(s) without settling on some
definition(s) of how they are defined?
If a god concept is not defined, then there is nothing to reject.
If #2 is not practiced by an athiest is #1 possible?
Sure. The theist says "God exists!" and all the atheist has to say in
response is "I don't believe you."
Take a glance at my recent post on this - it might interest you. The
question is this: how can you be justified in claiming that "I don't
believe you" is all that an *atheist* has to say? What is an atheist,
after all? It is *not* someome who replies "I don't believe you" to the
assertion "God exists!" *if* "God" is meaningless to them.
To see why consider this - suppose someone says to you "Pog exists!" and
you say "I don't believe you". You would be right - after all you don't
understand the word "Pog", and if you don't understand the word "Pog"
you can be sure that you lack a belief that they exist (similarly, you
would lack a bleief that they don't exist, of course). BUT - that would
*not* make you an *atheist*, now would it?! Of course, not - because an
atheist is someone who lacks a belief in the existence of *a god or
gods*. So, such a response would not be an atheists response *unless*
you understood that "Pog" meant "god" or "gods". Then your response
would be precisely what we should expect from an atheist. Do you see my
point? Either such an answer is not an atheists response (per se), or
you understand what "God" means well enough to respond (appropriately)
as an atheist.
I argue that it is not possible for someone to believe that they are an
atheist unless they understand the meaning of "atheist"; and they cannot
understand the meaning of "atheist" unless they understand the meaning
of "god", since a lack of belief in such things is *precisely* what
makes someone an atheist.
Goober
[snip]
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Conditions Required to be an Athiest? |
14 Jan 2005 04:20:25 PM |
|
|
"MG" <philosophicus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cs8d89$5gt$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"FreeThink" <zeno7772004@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105686292.444581.64070@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"FreeThink" <zeno7772004@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105679042.172046.80000@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Are these two positions required to be an atheist?
1) Theists practice presumption. Athiests do not.
2) The term 'God' is meaningless because it's definitions are not
relevant in any way.
Neither of these two positions are required to be an atheist.
Lack of belief in gods is all that's required.
You don't even have to have ever heard of gods.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
If one has heard of a God concept(s) do you think #2 is compatible with
being an atheist?
Compatable, but not required.
How could one reject God concept(s) without settling on some
definition(s) of how they are defined?
If a god concept is not defined, then there is nothing to reject.
If #2 is not practiced by an athiest is #1 possible?
Sure. The theist says "God exists!" and all the atheist has to say in
response is "I don't believe you."
Take a glance at my recent post on this - it might interest you. The
question is this: how can you be justified in claiming that "I don't
believe you" is all that an *atheist* has to say?
Because lack of belief is all that's necessary.
What is an atheist, after all? It is *not* someome who replies "I don't
believe you" to the assertion "God exists!" *if* "God" is meaningless to
them.
Why not?
To see why consider this - suppose someone says to you "Pog exists!" and
you say "I don't believe you". You would be right - after all you don't
understand the word "Pog", and if you don't understand the word "Pog" you
can be sure that you lack a belief that they exist (similarly, you would
lack a bleief that they don't exist, of course). BUT - that would *not*
make you an *atheist*, now would it?!
No. It would make me an apogist.
Of course, not - because an atheist is someone who lacks a belief in the
existence of *a god or gods*. So, such a response would not be an atheists
response *unless* you understood that "Pog" meant "god" or "gods". Then
your response would be precisely what we should expect from an atheist. Do
you see my point?
No. Knowledge can certainly change my state of belief. If I learn that Pog
means god, then I transform my apogism into atheism. I don't see any issue
here.
Either such an answer is not an atheists response (per se), or you
understand what "God" means well enough to respond (appropriately) as an
atheist.
I don't understand.
I argue that it is not possible for someone to believe that they are an
atheist unless they understand the meaning of "atheist";
WTF? Belief that one is an atheist has nothing to do with atheism. Knowledge
of atheism has nothing to with with being an atheist. You could have grown
up alone on a desert isle with no knowledge of gods, and if you haven't
concocted one of your own to believe in, then you're an atheist whether you
know it or not.
and they cannot understand the meaning of "atheist" unless they understand
the meaning of "god", since a lack of belief in such things is *precisely*
what makes someone an atheist.
There are no restrictions upon the reasons for not believing in a god. If
you've never heard of gods, never concocted one of your own, and never even
heard of atheism and lack the very concept, you are still an atheist.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Conditions Required to be an Athiest? |
14 Jan 2005 05:14:24 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 04:17:08 -0800, MG <philosophicus@hotmail.com>
said in alt.atheism:
Take a glance at my recent post on this - it might interest you. The
question is this: how can you be justified in claiming that "I don't
believe you" is all that an *atheist* has to say? What is an atheist,
after all? It is *not* someome who replies "I don't believe you" to the
assertion "God exists!" *if* "God" is meaningless to them.
Since that's *all* atheism is, you're wrong.
--
"To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains
premature today."
- Isaac Asimov
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Conditions Required to be an Athiest? |
14 Jan 2005 10:25:04 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 04:17:08 -0800, MG <philosophicus@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Denis Loubet wrote:
"FreeThink" <zeno7772004@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105686292.444581.64070@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"FreeThink" <zeno7772004@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105679042.172046.80000@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Are these two positions required to be an atheist?
1) Theists practice presumption. Athiests do not.
2) The term 'God' is meaningless because it's definitions are not
relevant in any way.
Neither of these two positions are required to be an atheist.
Lack of belief in gods is all that's required.
You don't even have to have ever heard of gods.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
If one has heard of a God concept(s) do you think #2 is compatible with
being an atheist?
Compatable, but not required.
How could one reject God concept(s) without settling on some
definition(s) of how they are defined?
If a god concept is not defined, then there is nothing to reject.
If #2 is not practiced by an athiest is #1 possible?
Sure. The theist says "God exists!" and all the atheist has to say in
response is "I don't believe you."
Take a glance at my recent post on this - it might interest you. The
question is this: how can you be justified in claiming that "I don't
believe you" is all that an *atheist* has to say? What is an atheist,
after all? It is *not* someome who replies "I don't believe you" to the
assertion "God exists!" *if* "God" is meaningless to them.
To see why consider this - suppose someone says to you "Pog exists!" and
you say "I don't believe you". You would be right - after all you don't
understand the word "Pog", and if you don't understand the word "Pog"
you can be sure that you lack a belief that they exist (similarly, you
would lack a bleief that they don't exist, of course). BUT - that would
*not* make you an *atheist*, now would it?! Of course, not - because an
atheist is someone who lacks a belief in the existence of *a god or
gods*. So, such a response would not be an atheists response *unless*
you understood that "Pog" meant "god" or "gods". Then your response
would be precisely what we should expect from an atheist. Do you see my
point? Either such an answer is not an atheists response (per se), or
you understand what "God" means well enough to respond (appropriately)
as an atheist.
I argue that it is not possible for someone to believe that they are an
atheist unless they understand the meaning of "atheist"; and they cannot
understand the meaning of "atheist" unless they understand the meaning
of "god", since a lack of belief in such things is *precisely* what
makes someone an atheist.
Depends on how you define atheist - as someone who lacks a belief in
gods, or as someone who has an active opinion of disbelief in gods.
I define it the first way (which seems pretty well accepted here) -
that if you have no concept of a god, it doesn't matter. You lack an
active belief so you are an atheist.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Conditions Required to be an Athiest? |
14 Jan 2005 05:13:34 PM |
|
|
On 14 Jan 2005 00:09:23 -0800, "FreeThink" <zeno7772004@yahoo.com>
said in alt.atheism:
Denis Loubet wrote:
"FreeThink" <zeno7772004@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105679042.172046.80000@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Are these two positions required to be an atheist?
1) Theists practice presumption. Athiests do not.
2) The term 'God' is meaningless because it's definitions are not
relevant in any way.
Neither of these two positions are required to be an atheist.
Lack of belief in gods is all that's required.
You don't even have to have ever heard of gods.
If one has heard of a God concept(s) do you think #2 is compatible with
being an atheist?
Yes and/or no. IOW, irrelevant.
How could one reject God concept(s) without settling on some
definition(s) of how they are defined?
Why discuss rejecting anything? Does a chair reject the god concept?
If #2 is not practiced by an athiest is #1 possible?
#2 may or may not be "practiced by an atheist". It has nothing to do
with being atheistic.
#1 may be possible. Both atheists and theists may presume or not.
Would it be valid for an athiest to say the non-existance of God(s) is
an absolute truth?
Maybe, but that has nothing to do with atheism.
--
"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is
a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the
crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due
to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious
indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility
corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of
nature and of our own being."
- Albert Einstein to Guy H. Raner Jr., Sept. 28, 1949, from article by
Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic magazine, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1997
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Conditions Required to be an Athiest? |
14 Jan 2005 08:37:59 AM |
|
|
On 14 Jan 2005 00:09:23 -0800, "FreeThink" <zeno7772004@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Denis Loubet wrote:
"FreeThink" <zeno7772004@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105679042.172046.80000@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Are these two positions required to be an atheist?
1) Theists practice presumption. Athiests do not.
2) The term 'God' is meaningless because it's definitions are not
relevant in any way.
Neither of these two positions are required to be an atheist.
Lack of belief in gods is all that's required.
You don't even have to have ever heard of gods.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
If one has heard of a God concept(s) do you think #2 is compatible with
being an atheist?
Of course.
How could one reject God concept(s) without settling on some
definition(s) of how they are defined?
Sigh. The concept exists. As part of somebody else's religion. The
theist's concept of it is meaningless in the real world outside his
religion, where the only accurate definitions describe it as part of
his religion.
So it only applies to the theist.
The very premises in an attempt to describe us don't even apply to us.
People called theists exist. They have things they call gods which
they worship, pray to, weave stories and rituals around.
We're not theists.
That's all there is to it.
If #2 is not practiced by an athiest is #1 possible?
Not our problem.
Would it be valid for an athiest to say the non-existance of God(s) is
an absolute truth?
Sigh.
We don't derive a worldview around presumptions which don't even apply
to us.
Any attemprt to describe us from those presumptions will always get it
wrong.
As will any attempt to interpret what we are fed up with having to
explain, when it is done from those presumptions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "FreeThink" |
|
| Title: Re: Conditions Required to be an Athiest? |
14 Jan 2005 10:13:24 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 14 Jan 2005 00:09:23 -0800, "FreeThink" <zeno7772004@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Denis Loubet wrote:
"FreeThink" <zeno7772004@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105679042.172046.80000@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Are these two positions required to be an atheist?
1) Theists practice presumption. Athiests do not.
2) The term 'God' is meaningless because it's definitions are
not
relevant in any way.
Neither of these two positions are required to be an atheist.
Lack of belief in gods is all that's required.
You don't even have to have ever heard of gods.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
If one has heard of a God concept(s) do you think #2 is compatible
with
being an atheist?
Of course.
How could one reject God concept(s) without settling on some
definition(s) of how they are defined?
Sigh. The concept exists. As part of somebody else's religion. The
theist's concept of it is meaningless in the real world outside his
religion, where the only accurate definitions describe it as part of
his religion.
So it only applies to the theist.
The very premises in an attempt to describe us don't even apply to
us.
People called theists exist. They have things they call gods which
they worship, pray to, weave stories and rituals around.
We're not theists.
That's all there is to it.
On that level yes. But I have heard that atheists can be 'spiritual'. I
have also been told atheists can have 'faith'. That makes the issue a
little more sticky and seems to deserve a little examination. I am
being analytical. It is more of a fun exercise than a statement about
atheists. I also desire a greater understanding of the term if I am
going to apply it to myself.
If #2 is not practiced by an athiest is #1 possible?
Not our problem.
Presumption is everybody's potential problem. I don't think there is
such a thing as an absolute proof so every issue is a gray area defined
by the amount of evidence available (or lack of it).
Would it be valid for an athiest to say the non-existance of God(s)
is
an absolute truth?
Sigh.
We don't derive a worldview around presumptions which don't even
apply
to us.
Any attemprt to describe us from those presumptions will always get
it
wrong.
As will any attempt to interpret what we are fed up with having to
explain, when it is done from those presumptions.
I agree for all practical purposes. But your statement seems more
political than philisophical. I'm trying to take the latter approach.
Sorry Christopher. I seem to be a perpetual thorn in your side. We are
much alike I think.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: Conditions Required to be an Athiest? |
14 Jan 2005 10:29:46 PM |
|
|
FreeThink wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 14 Jan 2005 00:09:23 -0800, "FreeThink" <zeno7772004@yahoo.com>
wrote:
(snip)
If #2 is not practiced by an athiest is #1 possible?
Not our problem.
Presumption is everybody's potential problem. I don't think there is
such a thing as an absolute proof so every issue is a gray area defined
by the amount of evidence available (or lack of it).
But that is a discussion of rationality, not atheism.
There is nothing inherent in atheism that requires rationality.
Rationality is just more common in atheists than theists,
since theism is an inherently irrational position.
--
John Popelish
.
|
|
|
| User: "FreeThink" |
|
| Title: Re: Conditions Required to be an Athiest? |
14 Jan 2005 10:24:33 PM |
|
|
John Popelish wrote:
FreeThink wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 14 Jan 2005 00:09:23 -0800, "FreeThink"
<zeno7772004@yahoo.com>
wrote:
(snip)
If #2 is not practiced by an athiest is #1 possible?
Not our problem.
Presumption is everybody's potential problem. I don't think there
is
such a thing as an absolute proof so every issue is a gray area
defined
by the amount of evidence available (or lack of it).
But that is a discussion of rationality, not atheism.
There is nothing inherent in atheism that requires rationality.
Rationality is just more common in atheists than theists,
since theism is an inherently irrational position.
--
John Popelish
I have heard people say that agnostics are a subset of atheists since
they are not theists. Would you say an agnostic requires rationality?
That seems to exclude them from being atheists if they are.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: Conditions Required to be an Athiest? |
14 Jan 2005 11:10:30 PM |
|
|
FreeThink wrote:
I have heard people say that agnostics are a subset of atheists since
they are not theists. Would you say an agnostic requires rationality?
That seems to exclude them from being atheists if they are.
The agnostic position on knowledge is a rational one. Agnosticism (at
least as defined by the man who coined the term) is about rationality.
That is, acknowledged agnostics (who use the word as Huxley defined
it) proclaim that no one has a right to demand, of someone else,
belief in the validity of a claim without a rational argument to
support that belief.
Probably because theists have had life and death power over others for
a significant part of history, agnostics often grant that the God
question is somehow more significant and deserving of consideration
that all the other ideas of more harmless crackpots. Agnosticism is a
rational defense against coercion to believe.
Lots of people who label themselves agnostic, however, mean by that
label that they are simply withholding judgment on the question of the
existence of some hypothetical god for no specified reason (and may
just be trying to politely say to theists that they are not really
very interested in the whole subject and want to avoid arguing). But
to most admitted atheists, this is a position of disbelief, and
therefore describes a flavor of atheism. If you are not a believer,
you are atheist, regardless of your positions on rationality or
anything else. You can wonder about hypothetical gods, think deeply
about hypothetical gods and even imagine the thoughts of hypothetical
gods, but until you become convinced that at least one has a reality
outside of people's imaginations, you remain atheist.
--
John Popelish
.
|
|
|
| User: "FreeThink" |
|
| Title: Re: Conditions Required to be an Athiest? |
14 Jan 2005 11:24:25 PM |
|
|
John Popelish wrote:
FreeThink wrote:
I have heard people say that agnostics are a subset of atheists
since
they are not theists. Would you say an agnostic requires
rationality?
That seems to exclude them from being atheists if they are.
The agnostic position on knowledge is a rational one. Agnosticism
(at
least as defined by the man who coined the term) is about
rationality.
That is, acknowledged agnostics (who use the word as Huxley defined
it) proclaim that no one has a right to demand, of someone else,
belief in the validity of a claim without a rational argument to
support that belief.
Probably because theists have had life and death power over others
for
a significant part of history, agnostics often grant that the God
question is somehow more significant and deserving of consideration
that all the other ideas of more harmless crackpots. Agnosticism is
a
rational defense against coercion to believe.
Lots of people who label themselves agnostic, however, mean by that
label that they are simply withholding judgment on the question of
the
existence of some hypothetical god for no specified reason (and may
just be trying to politely say to theists that they are not really
very interested in the whole subject and want to avoid arguing). But
to most admitted atheists, this is a position of disbelief, and
therefore describes a flavor of atheism. If you are not a believer,
you are atheist, regardless of your positions on rationality or
anything else. You can wonder about hypothetical gods, think deeply
about hypothetical gods and even imagine the thoughts of hypothetical
gods, but until you become convinced that at least one has a reality
outside of people's imaginations, you remain atheist.
--
John Popelish
I think the more commonly accepted definition of agnostic is a person
who thinks determining the existence of dieties is not possible. That
is why is it important to make a distinction between belief and
existence of dieties. If atheism was defined as not thinking dieties
existed, that group would have to exclude agnostics.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: Conditions Required to be an Athiest? |
14 Jan 2005 11:41:15 PM |
|
|
FreeThink wrote:
John Popelish wrote:
FreeThink wrote:
I have heard people say that agnostics are a subset of atheists
since
they are not theists. Would you say an agnostic requires
rationality?
That seems to exclude them from being atheists if they are.
The agnostic position on knowledge is a rational one. Agnosticism
(at
least as defined by the man who coined the term) is about
rationality.
That is, acknowledged agnostics (who use the word as Huxley defined
it) proclaim that no one has a right to demand, of someone else,
belief in the validity of a claim without a rational argument to
support that belief.
Probably because theists have had life and death power over others
for
a significant part of history, agnostics often grant that the God
question is somehow more significant and deserving of consideration
that all the other ideas of more harmless crackpots. Agnosticism is
a
rational defense against coercion to believe.
Lots of people who label themselves agnostic, however, mean by that
label that they are simply withholding judgment on the question of
the
existence of some hypothetical god for no specified reason (and may
just be trying to politely say to theists that they are not really
very interested in the whole subject and want to avoid arguing). But
to most admitted atheists, this is a position of disbelief, and
therefore describes a flavor of atheism. If you are not a believer,
you are atheist, regardless of your positions on rationality or
anything else. You can wonder about hypothetical gods, think deeply
about hypothetical gods and even imagine the thoughts of hypothetical
gods, but until you become convinced that at least one has a reality
outside of people's imaginations, you remain atheist.
--
John Popelish
I think the more commonly accepted definition of agnostic is a person
who thinks determining the existence of dieties is not possible.
That falls under my second description, above. "You haven't convinced
me, and I think that it can't be done by anybody, now go away."
That
is why is it important to make a distinction between belief and
existence of dieties.
Wrong, I think No one is discussing the verifiable existence of
deities, only the belief in the existence of totally hypothetical
deities. There are no existing (as verifiable objects) deities.
There are only claims from believers.
If atheism was defined as not thinking dieties
existed, that group would have to exclude agnostics.
If an 'agnostic' claims that it is impossible to determine the
existence of any particular hypothetical deity, I suppose they might
decide to believe in the existence of that hypothetical deity anyway,
but that is the only way they avoid being atheist, also.
--
John Popelish
.
|
|
|
| User: "FreeThink" |
|
| Title: Re: Conditions Required to be an Athiest? |
14 Jan 2005 11:55:53 PM |
|
|
John Popelish wrote:
FreeThink wrote:
John Popelish wrote:
FreeThink wrote:
I have heard people say that agnostics are a subset of atheists
since
they are not theists. Would you say an agnostic requires
rationality?
That seems to exclude them from being atheists if they are.
The agnostic position on knowledge is a rational one.
Agnosticism
(at
least as defined by the man who coined the term) is about
rationality.
That is, acknowledged agnostics (who use the word as Huxley
defined
it) proclaim that no one has a right to demand, of someone else,
belief in the validity of a claim without a rational argument to
support that belief.
Probably because theists have had life and death power over
others
for
a significant part of history, agnostics often grant that the God
question is somehow more significant and deserving of
consideration
that all the other ideas of more harmless crackpots. Agnosticism
is
a
rational defense against coercion to believe.
Lots of people who label themselves agnostic, however, mean by
that
label that they are simply withholding judgment on the question
of
the
existence of some hypothetical god for no specified reason (and
may
just be trying to politely say to theists that they are not
really
very interested in the whole subject and want to avoid arguing).
But
to most admitted atheists, this is a position of disbelief, and
therefore describes a flavor of atheism. If you are not a
believer,
you are atheist, regardless of your positions on rationality or
anything else. You can wonder about hypothetical gods, think
deeply
about hypothetical gods and even imagine the thoughts of
hypothetical
gods, but until you become convinced that at least one has a
reality
outside of people's imaginations, you remain atheist.
--
John Popelish
I think the more commonly accepted definition of agnostic is a
person
who thinks determining the existence of dieties is not possible.
That falls under my second description, above. "You haven't
convinced
me, and I think that it can't be done by anybody, now go away."
That
is why is it important to make a distinction between belief and
existence of dieties.
Wrong, I think No one is discussing the verifiable existence of
deities, only the belief in the existence of totally hypothetical
deities.
I didn't make a counter claim. I was just trying to point out the
importance of the distinction like you are.
There are no existing (as verifiable objects) deities.
There are only claims from believers.
I have always had a problem with defining existence with
verifiability. If something is not verifiable then no conclusion can be
made at all. That is the source of my examination of rationality in
atheism. Everything is only a claim. Some are just more reasonable than
others.
If atheism was defined as not thinking dieties
existed, that group would have to exclude agnostics.
If an 'agnostic' claims that it is impossible to determine the
existence of any particular hypothetical deity, I suppose they might
decide to believe in the existence of that hypothetical deity anyway,
but that is the only way they avoid being atheist, also.
Diety belief is not likely to happen in my case. :-)
--
John Popelish
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: Conditions Required to be an Athiest? |
15 Jan 2005 12:13:44 AM |
|
|
FreeThink wrote:
John Popelish wrote:
(snip)
There are no existing (as verifiable objects) deities.
There are only claims from believers.
I have always had a problem with defining existence with
verifiability. If something is not verifiable then no conclusion can be
made at all.
(snip)
If there isn't the slightest evidence then there is literally nothing
to talk about. Subject closed, pending arrival of something to talk
about.
Surely the universe provides enough evident things to fill your time
and thoughts.
--
John Popelish
.
|
|
|
| User: "FreeThink" |
|
| Title: Re: Conditions Required to be an Athiest? |
15 Jan 2005 12:08:36 AM |
|
|
John Popelish wrote:
FreeThink wrote:
John Popelish wrote:
(snip)
There are no existing (as verifiable objects) deities.
There are only claims from believers.
I have always had a problem with defining existence with
verifiability. If something is not verifiable then no conclusion
can be
made at all.
(snip)
If there isn't the slightest evidence then there is literally nothing
to talk about. Subject closed, pending arrival of something to talk
about.
Surely the universe provides enough evident things to fill your time
and thoughts.
--
John Popelish
Examining and trying to verify the idea that there is no way to verify
a diety is one of them. That seems evident.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: Conditions Required to be an Athiest? |
15 Jan 2005 12:27:14 AM |
|
|
FreeThink wrote:
John Popelish wrote:
FreeThink wrote:
John Popelish wrote:
(snip)
There are no existing (as verifiable objects) deities.
There are only claims from believers.
I have always had a problem with defining existence with
verifiability. If something is not verifiable then no conclusion
can be
made at all.
(snip)
If there isn't the slightest evidence then there is literally nothing
to talk about. Subject closed, pending arrival of something to talk
about.
Surely the universe provides enough evident things to fill your time
and thoughts.
--
John Popelish
Examining and trying to verify the idea that there is no way to verify
a diety is one of them. That seems evident.
:-)
--
John Popelish
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Conditions Required to be an Athiest? |
15 Jan 2005 03:13:15 AM |
|
|
On 14 Jan 2005 21:24:25 -0800, "FreeThink" <zeno7772004@yahoo.com>
wrote:
I think the more commonly accepted definition of agnostic is a person
who thinks determining the existence of dieties is not possible. That
is why is it important to make a distinction between belief and
existence of dieties. If atheism was defined as not thinking dieties
existed, that group would have to exclude agnostics.
They're orthogonal: one is about knowledge and its absence, the other
theism and its absence.
Most atheists haven't got anything in their paradigm to be agnostic
about.
"God" is the theist's premise, and only applies inside the theist
paradigm.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Conditions Required to be an Athiest? |
15 Jan 2005 12:57:44 AM |
|
|
On 14 Jan 2005 20:13:24 -0800, "FreeThink" <zeno7772004@yahoo.com>
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
People called theists exist. They have things they call gods which
they worship, pray to, weave stories and rituals around.
We're not theists.
That's all there is to it.
On that level yes. But I have heard that atheists can be 'spiritual'. I
have also been told atheists can have 'faith'. That makes the issue a
little more sticky and seems to deserve a little examination. I am
being analytical. It is more of a fun exercise than a statement about
atheists. I also desire a greater understanding of the term if I am
going to apply it to myself.
I honestly believe that the San Francisco Giants are going to win the
World Series this year. I have held this belief, every season, for
most of my adult life. The fact the Giants haven't won the Series
since 1951 does nothing to dampen my faith in their ability to win it
all.
Faith doesn't require a mythical object. You can have faith that a
friend will do you right, or that your team will do well.
If #2 is not practiced by an athiest is #1 possible?
Not our problem.
Presumption is everybody's potential problem. I don't think there is
such a thing as an absolute proof so every issue is a gray area defined
by the amount of evidence available (or lack of it).
Yup. We call that science, and try to answer the questions. The
problem with religion is they assume they already have all the
answers.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam" |
|
| Title: Re: Conditions Required to be an Athiest? |
15 Jan 2005 01:01:42 AM |
|
|
Douglas Berry wrote:
I honestly believe that the San Francisco Giants are going to win the
World Series this year. I have held this belief, every season, for
most of my adult life. The fact the Giants haven't won the Series
since 1951 does nothing to dampen my faith in their ability to win it
all.
i deride your faith!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "FreeThink" |
|
| Title: Re: Conditions Required to be an Athiest? |
14 Jan 2005 01:28:28 AM |
|
|
Denis Loubet wrote:
"FreeThink" <zeno7772004@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105679042.172046.80000@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Are these two positions required to be an atheist?
1) Theists practice presumption. Athiests do not.
2) The term 'God' is meaningless because it's definitions are not
relevant in any way.
Neither of these two positions are required to be an atheist.
Lack of belief in gods is all that's required.
You don't even have to have ever heard of gods.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
Presuming an atheist has heard of at least one god concept,
Is #2 compatible with being an atheist? How can an atheist take a stand
against god concept(s) without some definition of them?
I don't think it's possible.
If #2 is not present is #1 possible? If there is a god concept
definition which has been determined to not exist is some presumption
when making that conclusion allowed?
I think some presumption is required to take that stand.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Conditions Required to be an Athiest? |
14 Jan 2005 02:37:37 AM |
|
|
"FreeThink" <zeno7772004@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105687708.707144.154050@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Denis Loubet wrote:
"FreeThink" <zeno7772004@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1105679042.172046.80000@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Are these two positions required to be an atheist?
1) Theists practice presumption. Athiests do not.
2) The term 'God' is meaningless because it's definitions are not
relevant in any way.
Neither of these two positions are required to be an atheist.
Lack of belief in gods is all that's required.
You don't even have to have ever heard of gods.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
Presuming an atheist has heard of at least one god concept,
Is #2 compatible with being an atheist?
Compatable? Sure! But not required.
How can an atheist take a stand
against god concept(s) without some definition of them?
Atheism does not REQUIRE a stance against god concepts.
But it sure is fun.
I don't think it's possible.
Well, if the guy can't even explain what he believes in, the atheist is
pretty justified in telling him he's deluded or insane.
If #2 is not present is #1 possible?
Well, an atheist is not required to make any statement or claim, so #1 is
certainly possible.
However, there is nothing stopping an atheist from making claims that gods
do not exist, which could be catagorized as a presumption.
If there is a god concept
definition which has been determined to not exist is some presumption
when making that conclusion allowed?
Hmmm. I'm not sure what you mean. "Allowed" only matters if you're trying to
make a solid argument, and we'll presume you are. In that case, a
presumption is a bad thing because it's a claim you can't - or haven't -
backed up. Such a thing constitutes a hole in your argument, and opens your
argument to attack. Presumption is generally considered a bad thing in an
argument, and something to be avoided.
Some here will argue that god definitions cannot be disproved. I'm not one
of them. In my opinion, a sufficently defined god concept that offers
testable claims opens itself to testing and falsification.
I think some presumption is required to take that stand.
Presumption is a hole in one's argument. Anything one can do to lessen or
eliminate presumption will strengthen his argument.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Conditions Required to be an Athiest? |
14 Jan 2005 05:47:37 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 02:37:37 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote:
Hmmm. I'm not sure what you mean. "Allowed" only matters if you're trying to
make a solid argument, and we'll presume you are.
As are you by saying there is no God.
duke
*****
Matthew 7
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,'
will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he
who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Conditions Required to be an Athiest? |
15 Jan 2005 01:11:18 AM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:lemgu0degovlau0s62aagp5u8ud936a2eu@4ax.com...
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 02:37:37 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote:
Hmmm. I'm not sure what you mean. "Allowed" only matters if you're trying
to
make a solid argument, and we'll presume you are.
As are you by saying there is no God.
I don't say that. Why are you lying about me to my face?
Oh yeah, because you're a Christian.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Conditions Required to be an Athiest? |
15 Jan 2005 07:29:10 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 01:11:18 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote:
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:lemgu0degovlau0s62aagp5u8ud936a2eu@4ax.com...
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 02:37:37 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote:
Hmmm. I'm not sure what you mean. "Allowed" only matters if you're trying
to
make a solid argument, and we'll presume you are.
As are you by saying there is no God.
I don't say that. Why are you lying about me to my face?
Oh yeah, because you're a Christian.
Oh, then pardon me. Are you now saying that God almighty does exist?
duke
In God We Trust
*****
Matthew 7
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,'
will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he
who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Conditions Required to be an Athiest? |
15 Jan 2005 12:22:14 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:vj6iu0pchtl6ei0963b3p1gdbbcjjm3kcb@4ax.com...
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 01:11:18 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote:
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:lemgu0degovlau0s62aagp5u8ud936a2eu@4ax.com...
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 02:37:37 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
Hmmm. I'm not sure what you mean. "Allowed" only matters if you're
trying
to
make a solid argument, and we'll presume you are.
As are you by saying there is no God.
I don't say that. Why are you lying about me to my face?
Oh yeah, because you're a Christian.
Oh, then pardon me. Are you now saying that God almighty does exist?
Have I said that? No? Then why make that ***** up?
Oh yeah, because you're a Christian.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Conditions Required to be an Athiest? |
15 Jan 2005 05:08:06 PM |
|
|
PUKE wrote:
Oh, then pardon me. Are you now saying that God almighty does exist?
No, you're saying that, and it's all you can do because your
fundamental impotence prevents you from providing **EVIDENCE**. No
surprises there. Just more Duck *****.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Budikka666" |
|
| Title: Re: Conditions Required to be an Athiest? |
15 Jan 2005 06:05:02 PM |
|
|
PUKE wrote:
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 02:37:37 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
Hmmm. I'm not sure what you mean. "Allowed" only matters if you're
trying to
make a solid argument, and we'll presume you are.
That would be a mistake - Duck ***** never made a solid argument in his
life. He's fundamentally incapable of it.
Budikka
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
