Religions > Atheism > Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist")
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"MG" |
| Date: |
14 Jan 2005 06:35:17 AM |
| Object: |
Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
Is it possible to be an atheist and claim that the word "god" is
meaningless to them? Yes.
Is it possible for someone to believe that they are an atheist and
consistently claim that the word "god" is meaningless to them? No.
Lots of atheists here make the mistake of saying "god" is a meaningless
term to them, whilst at the same time saying that they lack a belief in
the existence of gods. The truth of the second claim manifestly
contradicts the first, and it is relatively easy to prove.
Def 1: "atheist" =df someone who lacks a belief in the existence
of a god or gods.
Def 2: Let R believe the proposition "R is an atheist"
P1: (principle of composition): For any proposition P, the meaning of P
depends on the meaning of P's constitutive terms.
P2: For any S, and for any proposition P, if S believes P then S
understands the meaning of P.
C1: (from P1 and P2): For any S, and for any proposition P, if S
believes P, then S understands the meanings of P's constitutive terms.
C2: (def 1: "atheist"): "god or gods" is a constitutive element of the
meaning of "atheist".
C3: (C2, C1, def 2): R understands the meaning of "god or gods".
Comment: The above is a relatively formal proof, but the intuitive point
is fairly clear:
1) you can't believe that you are an atheist unless you understand what
"atheist" means.
2) In order to understand what "atheist" means you must understand what
what class of beliefs it is that atheists lack.
3) That class - call it the class of G-beliefs - is defined by reference
to the existence of "a god or gods".
4) So an atheist has to understand what "god or gods" means in order to
understand what it is to be an atheist, in order to believe that they
are an atheist.
If an atheist did not understand the term "god or gods" then they could
not understand what belief it was that they lack, that makes them an
atheist. So they could not believe that they were an atheist.
Now... there are a lot of little tricks that some atheists try to get
out of this. None of them work.
The most popular is to argue like this:
A: "Someone tells me that 'pog is red' - but I can believe them without
understanding what 'pog' means. So understanding a constitutive term is
not required for a belief involving that term."
Nope - what you believe is that "the entity named 'pog' is red" - and
that is a different belief from believing "pog is red". The difference
occurs because of what philosphers sometimes call "referential opacity"
in "intentional contexts". Belief is what is sometimes called an
intentional context (so is desire, hope, etc.). This means that you
cannot substitute co-referential terms and guarantee preserving truth
value. A good example, is that Oedipus believed "Jocasta will be my
wife", but he did not believe "my mother will be my wife", even though
Jocasta was both his mother (he had no idea of that) and his wife to be.
He desired to sleep with his wife, but did not desire to sleep with his
mother, even though his wife was his mother.
Another try is this:
B: "Someone tells me that 'pog exists' - but I can lack a belief that
pog exists without understanding what 'pog' means. So understanding a
constitutive term is not required for a lack of belief in the existence
of whatever it might be they think they refer to."
Correct - but that is not the issue! Yes, you can lack a belief without
understanding the meaning of a constitutive term of that belief. BUT you
cannot *believe* that you lack that belief without understanding which
belief it is that you lack, and for that you need to understand it's
constitutive terms.
Another one:
C: "The word 'god' is used in so many different way by different
religions, most of them completely contradictory, that the term is
completely meaningless to me. But I lack a belief in any of them (or at
least all the ones I've come across) so I believe I am an atheist but
the term 'god' remains meaningless to me".
This is an interesting attempt but only because it raises several
interesting issues concerning langauge and meaning.
Firstly, it confuses a multiplicity of contradictory meanings with
meaninglessness by assuming that we have one word when we have, in
effect, either 1) many senses of the same word or 2) different words
(the choice between these two descriptions is ultimately arbitrary).
For example, the word "wicked" means (roughly) "something bad". It also
means (roughly) "something good". Both uses are current in English and
they clearly contradict each other. Have we, therefore, a meaningless
word "wicked"? No. Have we two words with different meanings, or one
word with radically different senses? Yes - you decide which description
you prefer. But you can't claim that it is meaningless just because it
gets used by different people in different contexts in many different
(often contradictory) ways.
Secondly, (if we assume each usage is internally consistent) the only
way one can judge two different words as contradicting each other would
be if one understood both meanings. Hence each would be meaningful.
Thirdly, the usage of the term "god" does allow us to form a *clear
enough* "god" concept to to form a judgement about when we lack a belief
in the existence of such things. Any atheist who says that they have no
idea what "god" means is either being disengenuous or is confused about
what it is for a term ot have meaning - generally, its the latter.
Another attempt....
D: "Every definition of 'god' that I've come across is self
contradictory in some way. I lack a belief in the existence of
self-contradictory entities, so 'god' is meaningless and I believe I am
an atheist."
More interesting issues...
Fourthly, (and this is very contentious) a self-contradictory deginition
is not meaningless. A sentence or concept is not meaningless if it is
*understood* and in order to determine that a sentence or concept is
self-contradictory it must be understood what is being said.
If I define "pog" = "a triangle with four sides" some people will say
"that is meaningless" - when what they actually mean is "that is
impossible - there can be no such entity - when I try to think of such
an entity I cannot". None of these is the same as the sentence or
concept being meaningless. The very fact that someone can make such
judgements about "pog" demonstrates that they understand what "pog" means.
I say this is contentious because many poeple think that all meaningfull
concepts must be possibly instantiatable. I'm not convinced, especially
because mathematicians frequently prove that certain entirely meaningful
and clearly defined concepts are not instantiated.
Fifthly, it is a mistake to think that to understand a concept term it
must be stated in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions.
Relatively few entirely meaningful concepts in ordinary languages are
amenable to strict definition. Try defining "game" and you'll see what I
mean. Try defiining "love", etc. Meaningful terms do not require
definition. If they did langauge learning could not even get started,
for to learn the first word we would need to already know words in which
the meaning of the first word would be defined.
I expect I'll get the same responses I have in the past when I've
mentioned all this.
And just to make it clear - I lack a belief in the existence of gods.
Goober.
.
|
|
| User: "Long" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
25 Jan 2005 12:12:09 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
In article <cf2dnetAXogBCmncRVn-sA@comcast.com>, Long <long@nospam.net>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods.
That's it. That's atheism in a nutshell
And Septic XL Troll, the Craven Capon, is the nut whose shell it is in.
If atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of any gods then theism
must be a belief in the existence of some god or gods.
Well DUH, yes, theists are those who hold an irrational religious belief
there might be some kind of magic invisible space pixie anyway, even though
there is nothing you can point to and say, 'There, that's what I'm talking
about', all you can do is keep trying to shift the burden of proof to the
atheists, but atheists have nothing (no thing) to prove, only you do.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
25 Jan 2005 01:24:14 PM |
|
|
In article <7qSdnSmvX6hmFmvcRVn-hQ@comcast.com>, Long <long@nospam.net>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
In article <cf2dnetAXogBCmncRVn-sA@comcast.com>, Long <long@nospam.net>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods.
That's it. That's atheism in a nutshell
And Septic XL Troll, the Craven Capon, is the nut whose shell it is in.
If atheism is a lack of belief in the existence of any gods then theism
must be a belief in the existence of some god or gods.
Well DUH, yes, theists are those who hold an irrational religious belief
there might be some kind of magic invisible space pixie anyway, even though
there is nothing you can point to and say, 'There, that's what I'm talking
about', all you can do is keep trying to shift the burden of proof to the
atheists, but atheists have nothing (no thing) to prove, only you do.
Septic XL Troll, the Craven Capon, again deliberately conflates belief in
"the existence of some god or gods"
with belief that
"there might be some kind of magic invisible space pixie".
This is further proof, if any more is needed, that Septic XL Troll, the
Craven Capon, will not ever give an accurate representation of anything
that anybody else has said. In other words, Septic XL Troll, the Craven
Capon, LIES about what others say.
In a way this is only fair because he also lies about what he himself
has said. Septic XL Troll, the Craven Capon, in response to suggestions
that a god might exist has often responded "False, there are no gods",
which clearly is a claim that the truth or falsehood of some statement
is known.
And any claim to know the truth or falsehood of any statement is a claim
requiring proof, which Septic XL Troll, the Craven Capon, always fails
to supply.
Yet Septic XL Troll, the Craven Capon, often denies ever having made any
such statement, even though Google gives him the lie. Note that among
other aliases, Septic XL Troll, the Craven Capon, has made this claim
using both "Muddy Boggs" and "Bob White" as false identities.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Goober" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
24 Jan 2005 06:49:58 AM |
|
|
Long wrote:
Goober wrote:
1) Your premise presupposes the very issue in question (whether there
is just one actual atheist position, and what that position is)
What issue in question?
Read the above.
Goober.
There is no question about it, moron, there IS
only one simple thing which characterizes atheism, and here it is, as
pointed out first thing on The Atheism Web:
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Is this too complex for your little brain to grasp?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Long" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
25 Jan 2005 12:06:04 PM |
|
|
Goober wrote:
Long wrote:
Goober wrote:
1) Your premise presupposes the very issue in question (whether there
is just one actual atheist position, and what that position is)
Atheism is not a 'position', "Atheism is characterized by an absence of
belief in the existence of gods." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Read the above.
I have read it. You are mistaken, there is no question about it, There IS
only one simple thing which characterizes atheism, and here it is, as
pointed out first thing on The Atheism Web:
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Is this too complex for your little brain to grasp?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
25 Jan 2005 01:09:53 PM |
|
|
In article <qPGdnZH7vpMTF2vcRVn-gg@comcast.com>, Long <long@nospam.net>
wrote:
Goober wrote:
Long wrote:
Goober wrote:
1) Your premise presupposes the very issue in question (whether there
is just one actual atheist position, and what that position is)
Atheism is not a 'position'
Then neither is theism to agnosticism or deism or any related 'ism.
Read the above.
I have read it. You are mistaken, there is no question about it, There IS
only one simple thing which characterizes atheism, and here it is, as
pointed out first thing on The Atheism Web:
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Is this too complex for your little brain to grasp?
If atheists choose deny that they are theists, then they are taking a
position. I suppose that atheists who remain mute on the subject might
be considered to have taken no position, but Septic XL Troll, the Craven
Capon, has hardly been mute on the subject.
Septic XL Troll, the Craven Capon, has taken a position, and
Septic XL Troll, the Craven Capon, claims to be atheist. Thus either
Septic XL Troll, the Craven Capon, is lying about being atheist or some
atheist have a position.
Or both.
So Septic XL. Troll, the Craven Capon, is WRONG! AGAIN!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Long" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
25 Jan 2005 01:21:53 PM |
|
|
Virgil wrote:
If atheists choose deny that they are theists ...
What makes you think atheists have a choice in the matter? I mean, it's not
like there is a god in evidence, is there?
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Atheist agnostics go beyond absence of belief in the existence of gods to
unabashedly deny and repudiate, on principle, religious belief in the
existence of gods:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe, without
logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined the term
'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian Belief, "Agnosticism and
Christianity" http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
25 Jan 2005 02:19:05 PM |
|
|
In article <0a-dnU7J_-HOAWvcRVn-rg@comcast.com>, Long <long@nospam.net>
wrote:
Virgil wrote:
If atheists choose to deny that they are theists ...
What makes you think atheists have a choice in the matter?
Is Septic XL Troll, the Craven Capon, saying that all atheists have to
tell the truth about their atheism? What compels them?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Goober" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
26 Jan 2005 04:08:47 PM |
|
|
Long wrote:
Virgil wrote:
If atheists choose deny that they are theists ...
What makes you think atheists have a choice in the matter?
When you learn not to misrepresent my claims, I'll consider responding
to what you might have to say.
Goober.
I mean, it's
not like there is a god in evidence, is there?
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Atheist agnostics go beyond absence of belief in the existence of gods
to unabashedly deny and repudiate, on principle, religious belief in the
existence of gods:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
without logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined
the term 'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian Belief,
"Agnosticism and Christianity"
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
25 Jan 2005 02:32:16 PM |
|
|
Long wrote:
Virgil wrote:
If atheists choose deny that they are theists ...
What makes you think atheists have a choice in the matter?
Some make no such denial, that's what. And if I disbelieve any
purported denial, as you've tried to pull elsewhere, then you've got a
big self-refutation problem.
I mean, it's not
like there is a god in evidence, is there?
It's not like there is any evidence that a lack of God-evidence coerces
a denial (no "choice in the matter") from anyone, is there, Septic?
The required default presumption is "no coercion", according to you,
yourself, Septic.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Long" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
26 Jan 2005 12:33:51 AM |
|
|
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1106685136.690009.216240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Long wrote:
Virgil wrote:
If atheists choose deny that they are theists ...
What makes you think atheists have a choice in the matter?
Some make no such denial, that's what.
That's WHAT?? Please explain what you are on about.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
26 Jan 2005 12:56:24 AM |
|
|
In article <OcWdnZPIsq9NpGrcRVn-ig@comcast.com>,
"Long" <long@nospam.net> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1106685136.690009.216240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Long wrote:
Virgil wrote:
If atheists choose deny that they are theists ...
What makes you think atheists have a choice in the matter?
Some make no such denial, that's what.
That's WHAT?? Please explain what you are on about.
Does Septic XL Troll, the Craven Capon, insist that no one can be an
atheist without making public declaration of his/her atheism?
That is as stupid as saying that no one could be homosexual without
making a public declaration of his/her homosexuality.
Atheists need not "come out of the closet" to be atheist, particularly
when "coming out of the closet" could have serious effects on their
lives.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
30 Jan 2005 09:43:33 AM |
|
|
Long wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1106685136.690009.216240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Long wrote:
Virgil wrote:
If atheists choose deny that they are theists ...
What makes you think atheists have a choice in the matter?
Some make no such denial, that's what.
That's WHAT??
Confused again, Septic? That's what makes me think supposed atheists
have a choice in the matter of whether to deny that they are theists.
Some supposed atheists make such a denial and some don't. And there
being no evident coercion on any of them in the matter (of whether or
not to deny that they are theists), ceteris paribus the inference to
the best explanation is that they have a choice in the matter. Q.E.D.
Septic, of course, remains the completely confused old idiot of
alt.atheism, as always. That's the IBE in Septic's case.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
01 Feb 2005 08:59:02 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Long wrote:
< > wrote in message
news:1106685136.690009.216240@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Long wrote:
Virgil wrote:
If atheists choose deny that they are theists ...
What makes you think atheists have a choice in the matter?
Some make no such denial, that's what.
That's WHAT??
Confused again, Septic?
Still confused, Septic? Or did this clear it up for you:
That's what makes me think supposed atheists
have a choice in the matter of whether to deny that they are theists.
Some supposed atheists make such a denial and some don't. And there
being no evident coercion on any of them in the matter (of whether or
not to deny that they are theists), ceteris paribus the inference to
the best explanation is that they have a choice in the matter.
Q.E.D.
?
Septic, of course, appears to remain the completely confused old idiot
of alt.atheism, as always. That's the IBE in Septic's case.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tygasi" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
01 Feb 2005 01:30:18 PM |
|
|
Jeff, isn't it true that you are one of those morons who believe there might
actually be a God The First Cause anyway, even though that idea is summarily
rejected due to a fallacy of special pleading inherent in it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
01 Feb 2005 04:27:04 PM |
|
|
In article <At6dnT0C0qReRWLcRVn-pw@comcast.com>,
"Tygasi" <tygasi@comcast.com> wrote:
Jeff, isn't it true that you are one of those morons...
It is indeed true that Septic XL Troll, the Craven Capon, now going
under the new false name of "Tygasi", is one of those morons who
believes that gods are known to be impossible even though that idea is
summarily rejected due to the fallacy of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam that
Septic XL Troll, the Craven Capon, always uses in support of it.
But Jeff is not.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
01 Feb 2005 02:51:50 PM |
|
|
Tygasi wrote:
Jeff, ... The First Cause ... that idea [has] a fallacy of special
pleading inherent in it
Septic, I deny that. And since you, Septic, have not _demonstrated_
any such fallacy in it (that is, I also deny that you have demonstrated
any such), you are hoist on your own petard (self-refuted), since you,
Septic, insist that denials incur no burden of proof whatsoever. Hop
to it, or remain the completely self-refuting old idiot loser of
alt.atheism that we all know you are.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tygasi" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
03 Feb 2005 02:13:31 PM |
|
|
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1107291110.153979.36610@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Tygasi wrote:
Jeff, isn't it true that you are one of those morons who believe there
might
actually be a God The First Cause anyway, even though that idea is summarily
rejected due to a fallacy of special pleading inherent in it?
I deny that. ...
There is no denying it, moron. You have to face up to this problem of an
inherent special pleading in your idea. Your idea that there might actually
be a God The First Cause, has an inherent fatal problem (a special pleading
for GodŽ) so it is summarily rejected as logical fallacy and a waste of
time, as Bertrand Russell points out:
"I need not waste any more time upon the argument about the First Cause." --
Russell, "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
"Perhaps the simplest and easiest to understand is the argument of the First
Cause. (It is maintained that everything we see in this world has a cause,
and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further you must come
to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the name of God.) That
argument, I suppose, does not carry very much weight nowadays, because, in
the first place, cause is not quite what it used to be. The philosophers and
the men of science have got going on cause, and it has not anything like the
vitality it used to have; but, apart from that, you can see that the
argument that there must be a First Cause is one that cannot have any
validity. I may say that when I was a young man and was debating these
questions very seriously in my mind, I for a long time accepted the argument
of the First Cause, until one day, at the age of eighteen, I read John
Stuart Mill's Autobiography, and I there found this sentence: "My father
taught me that the question 'Who made me?' cannot be answered, since it
immediately suggests the further question `Who made god?'" That very simple
sentence showed me, as I still think, the fallacy in the argument of the
First Cause. If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If
there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as
God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of
the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant
and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the
tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The argument is
really no better than that. There is no reason why the world could not have
come into being without a cause; nor, on the other hand, is there any reason
why it should not have always existed. There is no reason to suppose that
the world had a beginning at all. The idea that things must have a beginning
is really due to the poverty of our imagination. Therefore, perhaps, I need
not waste any more time upon the argument about the First Cause." -- Russell
"Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
It's a very simple problem for anybody who still believes there might be a
First Cause anyway. All they have to do is come up with an argument for
First Cause that does not run into this fatal problem (special pleading)
inherent in the very idea of it, which Russell points out.
<cue the chirping crickets>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
03 Feb 2005 03:48:20 PM |
|
|
In article <xcadneNJY8dxGJ_fRVn-3w@comcast.com>,
"Tygasi" <tygasi@comcast.com> wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1107291110.153979.36610@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Tygasi wrote:
Jeff, isn't it true that you are one of those morons who believe there
might
actually be a God The First Cause anyway, even though that idea is summarily
rejected due to a fallacy of special pleading inherent in it?
I deny that. ...
There is no denying it, moron.
There is! He did!
You have to face up to this problem of an
inherent special pleading in your idea.
But Septic XL Troll, the Craven Capon, has to face up to the fact that
no amount of special pleading FOR a conclusion can prove that conclusion
FALSE. At most such pleading will fail to prove it true, which is quite
different.
But Septic XL Troll, the Craven Capon, keeps arguing ad ignorantiam that
failure of a special pleading to prove something true actually does
prove it false. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam is a specialty of Septic XL
Troll, the Craven Capon. He does it in at least 57 different varieties,
Septic XL Troll, the Craven Capon, is a sort of Heintz of Argumenta ad
Ignorantiam.
Your idea that there might actually
be a God The First Cause, has an inherent fatal problem (a special pleading
for GodŽ)
Which only falis to prove it true, though Septic XL Troll, the Craven
Capon, does his usual Argumentum ad Ignorantiam thing again here.
"...It is maintained that everything we see in this world has a
cause, and as you go back in the chain of causes further and further
you must come to a First Cause, and to that First Cause you give the
name of God.... you can see that the argument that there MUST be a
First Cause is one that cannot have any validity. ...
Bertrand Russell. "Why I Am Not a Christian"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/russell_wnc.html
Which absolutely scuttles Septic XL Troll, the Craven Capon's false
claims that Russell says anything derogatory about the POSSIBILITY of a
first cause.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
03 Feb 2005 02:24:18 PM |
|
|
Tygasi wrote:
<jientho@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1107291110.153979.36610@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Tygasi wrote:
Jeff, ... The First Cause ... that idea [has] a fallacy of=AD
special
pleading inherent in it
I deny that.
There is no denying it,
False. The denial is right there, Septic. Here, I'll deny it again:
I deny that the idea of a First Cause has any fallacy of special
pleading inherent in it, Septic. Tilt at windmills all you like.
<snip Septic again failing to _demonstrate_ any fallacy; stop trying to
shift the burden to the denial, Septic; the denial stands>
Septic remains the completely delusional and self-refuting old idiot
fool of alt.atheism, as always.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Goober" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
26 Jan 2005 04:07:08 PM |
|
|
Long wrote:
Goober wrote:
Long wrote:
Goober wrote:
1) Your premise presupposes the very issue in question (whether
there is just one actual atheist position, and what that position is)
Atheism is not a 'position', "Atheism is characterized by an absence of
belief in the existence of gods." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Read the above.
I have read it.
Then don't ask stupid questions like "What is the question?".
You are mistaken, there is no question about it, There
IS only one simple thing which characterizes atheism, and here it is, as
pointed out first thing on The Atheism Web:
"Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of
gods." -- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
See above for the question. See my posts for my answer to the question.
Goober.
Is this too complex for your little brain to grasp?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Goober" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
22 Jan 2005 01:18:45 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
[snip]
6)
If they want to stick with common usage - lump it - it's everyone else's
langauge as much as yours. You don't have to adopt their usage; they
don't have to adopt yours; and neither of you have to talk to each
other. If you do talk to each other, though, try to agree on meanings of
key terms first.
Nope. when somebody tells me what an atheist is, and gets it wrong
then they get corrected.
They don't get it wrong, they simply use the wrong sense to refer to
you. You are right ot correct them on that.
For some reason people refuse to acknowledge their "mistake" and
attack instead.
People who cannot see their mistakes are often like that. Some even
insult you with words like "moron" or "liar".
7)
Theists, as a rule, do not believe that their "paradigm" applies to
everyone else. Tell a theist that you couldn't care less, and the vast
majority will understand what you said. They may be puzzled or
sceptical, but that's their prerogative. They have their ways of looking
at things - you have yours. They haev their conceptual categories; you
have yours. Do not assume that your paradigms apply to them, anymore
than theirs apply to you.
In the US they do.
A sweeping claim that I reject.
Otherwise why would they attempt to "define" us
according to presumptions that don't even apply to us?
They don't define *you* - they, along with every other speaker of
English, defines, by their various usages, what "atheist" means.
Why would they
insist that this is One Nation under God?
Let's stay on topic - the meaning(s) of "atheist".
8)
There are stupid an ignorant theists out there. Not every theist is as
you paint them, though some are.
Far too many.
Perhaps so.
As evidenced by the sheer number that lecture atheists
on what it means to be atheist, when they wouldn't dream of going into
a black bar and lecturing the regulars about being black.
They are as at liberty as anyone else to comment on the meanings of the
words that they use. If they use a word at variance with how you use the
word then, so long as it has an established usage, you are in no
position to tell them that they are *wrong* IN GETTING THE MEANING OF
THE WORD WRONG.
You ARE fully in your rights to point out when somebody else's usage
does not apply to you. And despite your repeated assertions to the
contrary, I have never claimed that they have any right to tell you how
to use the word "atheist", nor what your position is. They are wrong to
apply the word to you under a usage that does not apply to you, even if
it is an established usage.
But they have every right to use "atheist" to mean "person who believes
that thre are no gods".
----------- [pause for ONE LAST try]
Please read the following example *very carefully*. If you understand
it, you will be well on the way to understanding almost everything that
I've been saying to you. If you don't understand it, I give up trying to
explain it to you. Here's what happens:
X sees Y point to a green mineral. Y identifies it as "jade".
Jade is actually a term that applies to two minerals: jadeite and
nephrite with almost identical surface properties. These are two
completely different minerals, but lets just suppose for my example that
jadeite is a *subclass* of a broader class of minerals, the nephrites.
And let's suppose that there are, amongst English-speakers, two
established definitions: "jade" = jadeite, and "jade" = any nephrite.
Just to avoid any irrelevant issues of expertise, let's also suppose
that chemists never use the term "jade". When chemists engage in
scientific discourse, they specify either "nephrite" for the broader
class of minerals, or "jadeite" for the specific mineral. If this
bothers you, imagine instead that some chemists use "jade" to refer just
to jadeite, whilst others use it to refer to any nephrite. Either way,
suppose that there is no universally agreed upon usage of "jade" amongst
the supposed experts. Okay...
NEXT.... suppose that the mineral pointed to and identified as "jade" is
a nephrite, and that it is NOT jadeite. The person pointing to the
object meant "jade" = any nephrite, and they were *completely* entitled
to do so. That, after all, is one of the established meanings of "jade".
NOW.... suppose that when X uses the word "jade" they always mean the
first definition - "jade" = jadeite". They might be completely unaware
of the second definition.
X says to Y "Ah, so it is jadeite". What has X got wrong? NOT the
meaning of "jade". They have simply misunderstood what Y meant by
"jade". And what does Y say to X's mistake?
The *appropriate* response is something like this:
Y: "No, you've got it wrong. It is a nephrite, a broader class than
jadeite. That is what I mean when I use "jade" and it is an established
usage so don't expect me to change my usage to suit your usage. You are
using "jade" in a different way. One that is also a legitimate usage of
"jade", but not the one that I use. If I want to refer to what you call
"jade", I will use "jadeite"" etc...
If X does not accept that - that is X's problem.
BUT YOU respond something like this:
Y: "No, you've got it wrong. That is, you have the meaning of "jade"
wrong. It does not mean what you think it means. It refers only to
"nephrites"." etc...
But X has NOT got the meaning of "jade" wrong. X is using the word in a
perfectly well established way; in an entirely correct sense. The
mistake X makes is simply to suppose that Y uses the same meaning as
they do. They should be alerted to this mistake.
If you have read and understood the above, let me know.
9)
In my experience most theists do let atheists have their position.
Others are assholes (as are some atheists). Others are stupid (as are
some atheists). But you don't help matters if you talk about being an
atheist without being clear that what you mean is not what they, or most
people, mean. I can't speak for your experiences, but in general, in my
experience, treat them with respect, and you get respect back.
Which is why I correct them when they use the wrong meaning.
The only thing you have the right to do is to tell them that their usage
does not apply to you. That is completely different from getting the
meaning of the word wrong. Do you really not see the difference?
10)
Outside the monotheistic "paradigm" there are many alternatives other
than "they believe in something they call God that they think created
the universe". Again, you speak for yourself, and yourself alone.
Nope.
That is basic logic.
?? well since you haven't attempted to justify or elucidate I can only
reiterate my claim.
I try not to ignore your explanations - I just think that they are
largely mistaken, confused, or irrelevant, and I've tried to say why
elsewhere in other posts.
Only because you are too stupid to grasp them, or even grant that they
could be genuine.
You're entitled to your opinion.
Goober.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
19 Jan 2005 12:54:18 PM |
|
|
On 19 Jan 2005 10:18:05 -0800, "tergiversant@OklahomaAtheists.info"
<tergiversant@yahoo.com> wrote:
Perhaps a poll might not be a joking matter after all. One quick
question for the self-identified atheists on list before I pack up my
lunchbox and get back to work. How often, in your rough estimation, do
you hear someone in everyday speech put forth a concept of "god" which
would make you prefer claim (1) to claim (2) below?
1) That god may or may not be real, but I do not personally assert that
it is real.
2) I would (boldly) assert that this god is merely a fiction created by
human beings.
False dichotomy.
3) It is somebody else's religious belief, and the "question" doesn't
even arise in the real world any more than the question of James T.
Kirk being the captain of the Enterprise.
As to me personally, I run into type-2 gods so often as to make the
type-1 gods a trifling matter at best, and this is why I describe
myself as an "atheist" (in the most common sense of the term) rather
than an "agnostic" (or "weak atheist" as some would call it).
No, moron, they are NOT the same.
Again, one is about a specific belief (theism) and its absence and the
other knowledge and its absence.
With the exception of C.Lee, I look forward to hearing your insights.
"Nyaah, Nyaah, I've got my ears covered". Coward.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
19 Jan 2005 11:10:36 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 16:21:38 GMT, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com said:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 19 Jan 2005 06:16:34 -0800,
"tergiversant@OklahomaAtheists.info"
<tergiversant@yahoo.com> wrote:
Typically, as in dictionaries reportive of English usage.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=4607&dict=CALD
And they got it wrong. Perhaps they should have asked atheists?
Tergiversant is an atheist. Tergiversant, as an atheist, gets to
define what "atheist" means, according to you yourself, Lee.
Tergiversant defines "atheist" as above. How can he be wrong?
Simply
because you are excluded and you think you are an atheist too? By
MG's
sound argument as well, your own statements (re "God") exempt you
from
(logically consistently) believing yourself to be atheist. That's
two
strikes against you, and you're swinging wildly. (Hint: your
muddleheaded ideas are the problem, not any dictionaries, and not
MG
nor tergiversant.)
Having watched C. Lee for a few posts, I am concluding that he is
incorrigible.
Having watched you for a while I long ago concluded that you are just
plain dumb.
Tergiversant uses a restrictive definition that excludes plenty of
atheists.
How are they atheists if they are excluded from the definition of
"atheist", as determined by the atheist tergiversant? Doesn't the
atheist tergiversant get to determine the definition of "atheist", by
virtue of being an atheist, just as you yourself have said, Lee? Which
supposed atheists are supposed to determine the definitive definition
of "atheist", when there are groups of supposed atheists giving
conflicting definitions of "atheist"? Sheesh, an unbiased observer
might just conclude that there cannot exist any such thing as an
"atheist" if even the supposed "atheists" cannot agree on a definition.
(Sound familiar? Hint: "God".) :-)
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "XL" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
19 Jan 2005 12:43:32 PM |
|
|
wrote:
... Doesn't the
atheist tergiversant get to determine the definition of "atheist", by
virtue of being an atheist ...
He is atheist by virtuue of not sharing your belief there might be a
magic invisible space pixie who created the uinverse, moron, "Atheism is
characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Atheist agnostics go beyond absence of belief in the existence of gods
to unabashedly deny and repudiate, on principle, religious belief in the
existence of gods:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
without logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined
the term 'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian Belief,
"Agnosticism and Christianity"
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
19 Jan 2005 01:35:28 PM |
|
|
XL wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
... Doesn't the
atheist tergiversant get to determine the definition of "atheist",
by
virtue of being an atheist ...
He is atheist by virtuue
That's not the question, Septic. Ya moron. Read it again. If atheist
tergiversant determines that the definition of "atheist" is different
from the definition Septic advocates, which definition shall a third
party consider definitive? Or should said third party conclude that if
self-professed atheists can't even agree on a definition, there may as
well not be any atheists, as far as innocent bystanders are concerned.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "XL" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
19 Jan 2005 02:51:57 PM |
|
|
wrote:
XL wrote:
wrote:
... Doesn't the
atheist tergiversant get to determine the definition of "atheist",
by virtue of being an atheist ...
He is atheist by virtue
That's not the question ...
Yes it is, moron. He is atheist because he does not share your
irrational religious belief there might be a magic invisible space pixie
who created the universe: "Atheism is characterized by an absence of
belief in the existence of gods." --
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Atheist agnostics go beyond absence of belief in the existence of gods
to unabashedly deny and repudiate, on principle, religious belief in the
existence of gods:
"That which Agnostics deny and repudiate, as immoral, is the contrary
doctrine, that there are propositions which men ought to believe,
without logically satisfactory evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, who coined
the term 'agnostic', in his excoriation of the Christian Belief,
"Agnosticism and Christianity"
http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE5/Agn-X.html
"The deepest sin against the human mind is to believe things without
evidence." -- Thomas Huxley, Evolution and Ethics
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
19 Jan 2005 04:30:33 PM |
|
|
In article <KL-dnbsQ1bbwVXPcRVn-rg@comcast.com>, XL <xl@xl.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
XL wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
... Doesn't the
atheist tergiversant get to determine the definition of "atheist",
by virtue of being an atheist ...
He is atheist by virtue
That's not the question ...
Yes it is, moron.
Says this NGs chief imbecile, Septic XL Troll, the Craven Capon.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
20 Jan 2005 02:11:15 PM |
|
|
XL wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
XL wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
... Doesn't the
atheist tergiversant get to determine the definition of "atheist",
by virtue of being an atheist ...
He is atheist by virtue
That's not the question ...
Yes it is,
No it isn't.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
20 Jan 2005 02:06:21 PM |
|
|
XL wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
XL wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
... Doesn't the
atheist tergiversant get to determine the definition of "atheist",
by virtue of being an atheist ...
He is atheist by virtue
That's not the question ...
Yes it is,
No it isn't, Septic. The question is whether someone who meets Lee's
preferred definition of "atheist" has the ability to re-determine
(differently) the definition of "atheist"; because Lee has said that
"atheists are the ones who get to define 'atheism'" (paraphrasing). At
best Lee is over-generalizing and Special Pleading his own authority
(in the matter of defining "atheism"). Note that when Lee is
confronted with solid counterarguments from fellow atheists, he just
lets fly with the blatant ad hominem Fallacy. Quite poor form.
Similar to you, Septic.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Meaningfullness of "God" (was "Conditions required to be an atheist") |
19 Jan 2005 02:06:08 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:44:16 GMT, Jim07D5 <Jim07D5@nospam.net> wrote:
If Tergiversant happens to define atheist the same way some theist
does, that is his business as an atheist to do so. You say that
theists are not entitled to prescribe definitions for atheists, but
who put you in charge? Each atheist is entitled to mean whatever he
wants to mean by calling himself an atheist. If he uses a definition
that is so unconventional that he is accused of using a private
dictionary, he will have to deal with that accusation. But there is no
one person in charge of policing that matter AFAIK.
If you could read for comprehension, you would have noticed several
times that Tergiversant's definition excludes plenty of atheists.
And that I also gave several reasons why this invalid:
- It does not describe a large number of us.
- It rests on the theist's premises that don't even apply to us.
- The word "God" only has meaning such that it could or couldn't exist
inside the domain of the theist's religion.
- Outside that religion is simply "somebody else's belief that we
don't share".
Also that the one I gave describes all atheists including both the
ones his excluded, and his restrictive subset.
Please, pretty please, address these explanations instead of accusing
me of doing things I'm not, and using it as an hominem excuse to
dismiss them.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
