| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Tcozen" |
| Date: |
27 Oct 2005 03:02:13 AM |
| Object: |
No such thing as an atheist |
I have yet to meet a true atheist. Most 'atheists' I have met are
agnostics who don't yet know it.
.
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as an atheist |
10 Nov 2005 08:53:33 PM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
And why do you grant "I don't know" status to the theist's deity?
Which "theist's deity"? What's your evidence or argument that (for
example) if life was introduced onto earth by an intelligent agent,
that particular deity had to be the agent?
Without that, all we have is an opinion that you share with those
particular theists.
IOW, something in common with them besides agnostic-bashing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as an atheist |
11 Nov 2005 02:05:56 AM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
George Dance wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
And why do you grant "I don't know" status to the theist's deity?
Which "theist's deity"? What's your evidence or argument that (for
example) if life was introduced onto earth by an intelligent agent,
that particular deity had to be the agent?
Without that, all we have is an opinion that you share with those
particular theists.
IOW, something in common with them besides agnostic-bashing.
So would you say that an agnostic is someone who asserts that the
existence or nonexistence of God cannot be known? If not, then
how would you define the term "agnostic"?
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as an atheist |
11 Nov 2005 05:50:46 AM |
|
|
Colin Day wrote:
George Dance wrote:
George Dance wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
And why do you grant "I don't know" status to the theist's deity?
Which "theist's deity"? What's your evidence or argument that (for
example) if life was introduced onto earth by an intelligent agent,
that particular deity had to be the agent?
Without that, all we have is an opinion that you share with those
particular theists.
IOW, something in common with them besides agnostic-bashing.
So would you say that an agnostic is someone who asserts that the
existence or nonexistence of God cannot be known?
"Is not" rather than "cannot be"; otherwise that's a reasonable
description of what agnostics say. It's not a definition, though, but
an accident based on the state of human knowledge - should an agnostic
find convincing evidence, then agnosticism requires him to first thest
it and, then if it is convincing, believe it.
If not, then
how would you define the term "agnostic"?
By the definition I gave previously in this thread:
"Agnosticism simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes
that for which he has no grounds for professing to believe."
http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Weak_agnosticism
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as an atheist |
11 Nov 2005 09:50:58 AM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
Colin Day wrote:
George Dance wrote:
George Dance wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
And why do you grant "I don't know" status to the theist's deity?
Which "theist's deity"? What's your evidence or argument that (for
example) if life was introduced onto earth by an intelligent agent,
that particular deity had to be the agent?
Without that, all we have is an opinion that you share with those
particular theists.
IOW, something in common with them besides agnostic-bashing.
So would you say that an agnostic is someone who asserts that the
existence or nonexistence of God cannot be known?
"Is not" rather than "cannot be"; otherwise that's a reasonable
description of what agnostics say. It's not a definition, though, but
an accident based on the state of human knowledge - should an agnostic
find convincing evidence, then agnosticism requires him to first thest
it and, then if it is convincing, believe it.
If not, then
how would you define the term "agnostic"?
By the definition I gave previously in this thread:
"Agnosticism simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes
that for which he has no grounds for professing to believe."
http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Weak_agnosticism
But why does belief require any grounds at all?
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as an atheist |
11 Nov 2005 04:44:19 PM |
|
|
Colin Day wrote:
George Dance wrote:
Colin Day wrote:
George Dance wrote:
George Dance wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
And why do you grant "I don't know" status to the theist's deity?
Which "theist's deity"? What's your evidence or argument that (for
example) if life was introduced onto earth by an intelligent agent,
that particular deity had to be the agent?
Without that, all we have is an opinion that you share with those
particular theists.
IOW, something in common with them besides agnostic-bashing.
So would you say that an agnostic is someone who asserts that the
existence or nonexistence of God cannot be known?
"Is not" rather than "cannot be"; otherwise that's a reasonable
description of what agnostics say. It's not a definition, though, but
an accident based on the state of human knowledge - should an agnostic
find convincing evidence, then agnosticism requires him to first thest
it and, then if it is convincing, believe it.
If not, then
how would you define the term "agnostic"?
By the definition I gave previously in this thread:
"Agnosticism simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes
that for which he has no grounds for professing to believe."
http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Weak_agnosticism
But why does belief require any grounds at all?
Colin Day aa #1500
Because success in acheiving your purposes is at least partly
determined by the truth of your beliefs (by whether what you think is
true); so, assuming you have any purposes, it's logical for you to want
your beliefs to be true. 'Grounds' here being the reasons for thinking
a belief is true. As agnostics like to say (and some like to chant),
'agnosticism is logical.'
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as an atheist |
12 Nov 2005 01:26:38 AM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
Colin Day wrote:
George Dance wrote:
Colin Day wrote:
George Dance wrote:
George Dance wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
And why do you grant "I don't know" status to the theist's deity?
Which "theist's deity"? What's your evidence or argument that (for
example) if life was introduced onto earth by an intelligent agent,
that particular deity had to be the agent?
Without that, all we have is an opinion that you share with those
particular theists.
IOW, something in common with them besides agnostic-bashing.
So would you say that an agnostic is someone who asserts that the
existence or nonexistence of God cannot be known?
"Is not" rather than "cannot be"; otherwise that's a reasonable
description of what agnostics say. It's not a definition, though, but
an accident based on the state of human knowledge - should an agnostic
find convincing evidence, then agnosticism requires him to first thest
it and, then if it is convincing, believe it.
If not, then
how would you define the term "agnostic"?
By the definition I gave previously in this thread:
"Agnosticism simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes
that for which he has no grounds for professing to believe."
http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Weak_agnosticism
But why does belief require any grounds at all?
Colin Day aa #1500
Because success in acheiving your purposes is at least partly
determined by the truth of your beliefs (by whether what you think is
true); so, assuming you have any purposes, it's logical for you to want
your beliefs to be true. 'Grounds' here being the reasons for thinking
a belief is true. As agnostics like to say (and some like to chant),
'agnosticism is logical.'
I see your point, but what about cases where the truth isn't obvious?
Also, some people claim that success requires subjective certainty more
that it requires objective correctness (confidence is more important
than truth). I have seen a book with a title like often wrong, but never in
doubt. I react negatively to such an attitude, but there it is.
Also, while you use the term "reason" to mean epistemological justification,
others are broder in what they accept as a reason for a belief.
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as an atheist |
12 Nov 2005 09:46:59 AM |
|
|
Colin Day wrote:
George Dance wrote:
Colin Day wrote:
George Dance wrote:
Colin Day wrote:
George Dance wrote:
George Dance wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
And why do you grant "I don't know" status to the theist's deity?
Which "theist's deity"? What's your evidence or argument that (for
example) if life was introduced onto earth by an intelligent agent,
that particular deity had to be the agent?
Without that, all we have is an opinion that you share with those
particular theists.
IOW, something in common with them besides agnostic-bashing.
So would you say that an agnostic is someone who asserts that the
existence or nonexistence of God cannot be known?
"Is not" rather than "cannot be"; otherwise that's a reasonable
description of what agnostics say. It's not a definition, though, but
an accident based on the state of human knowledge - should an agnostic
find convincing evidence, then agnosticism requires him to first thest
it and, then if it is convincing, believe it.
If not, then
how would you define the term "agnostic"?
By the definition I gave previously in this thread:
"Agnosticism simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes
that for which he has no grounds for professing to believe."
http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Weak_agnosticism
But why does belief require any grounds at all?
Colin Day aa #1500
Because success in acheiving your purposes is at least partly
determined by the truth of your beliefs (by whether what you think is
true); so, assuming you have any purposes, it's logical for you to want
your beliefs to be true. 'Grounds' here being the reasons for thinking
a belief is true. As agnostics like to say (and some like to chant),
'agnosticism is logical.'
I see your point, but what about cases where the truth isn't obvious?
Also, some people claim that success requires subjective certainty more
that it requires objective correctness (confidence is more important
than truth).
Good point but I think it is true only insofar as it is a motivator.
Confidence in and of itself won't take you very far.
I have seen a book with a title like often wrong, but never in
doubt. I react negatively to such an attitude, but there it is.
Yeah, who would want to deal with a jerk like that? But
successful people correct the first part of that as they go,
on the fly and it is the second part that keeps them going.
Show business, politics seems to require a high threshold
for embarrassment.
Also, while you use the term "reason" to mean epistemological justification,
others are brode r in what they accept as a reason for a belief.
Colin Day aa #15000
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as an atheist |
12 Nov 2005 12:25:22 PM |
|
|
Colin Day wrote:
George Dance wrote:
Colin Day wrote:
George Dance wrote:
Colin Day wrote:
George Dance wrote:
George Dance wrote:
So would you say that an agnostic is someone who asserts that the
existence or nonexistence of God cannot be known?
"Is not" rather than "cannot be"; otherwise that's a reasonable
description of what agnostics say. It's not a definition, though, but
an accident based on the state of human knowledge - should an agnostic
find convincing evidence, then agnosticism requires him to first test
it and, then if it is convincing, believe it.
how would you define the term "agnostic"?
By the definition I gave previously in this thread:
"Agnosticism simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes
that for which he has no grounds for professing to believe."
http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Weak_agnosticism
But why does belief require any grounds at all?
Because success in acheiving your purposes is at least partly
determined by the truth of your beliefs (by whether what you think is
true); so, assuming you have any purposes, it's logical for you to want
your beliefs to be true. 'Grounds' here being the reasons for thinking
a belief is true. As agnostics like to say (and some like to chant),
'agnosticism is logical.'
I see your point, but what about cases where the truth isn't obvious?
Then believe that: that the truth isn't obvious. There's no
incompatibility with the above principle, and believing that some
propositions are more or less likely to be true; or even in acting on
propositions one does not believe are true. (For instance, I buy
lottery tickets every week, even though I do not believe in any case
that that ticket is the winner.) All that's ruled out is trying to
'profess' (to oneself or others) that one actually knows things that
one actually does not.
Also, some people claim that success requires subjective certainty more
that it requires objective correctness (confidence is more important
than truth). I have seen a book with a title like often wrong, but never in
doubt. I react negatively to such an attitude, but there it is.
No doubt subjective certainty is enough for success in some cases. For
instance, manage to convince enough people that a stock's price will
rise, and it will rise. In other cases (like being able to drive a
car, for instance), subjective can be necessary for success, but it's
clearly not sufficient. In other cases (as for those persons who buy
winning lotter tickets), subjective certainty isn't even necessary.
Also, while you use the term "reason" to mean epistemological justification,
others are broder in what they accept as a reason for a belief.
Far be it from me to tell anyone else what they have to count as a
'reason.' I would point out, though, that anyone claiming he has a
reason X to think Y is true is claiming that X justifies him in
believing Y - and he has the onus of explaining just how X justifies Y.
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as an atheist |
11 Nov 2005 09:56:43 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 18:18:17 -0500, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On 10 Nov 2005 14:53:01 -0800, wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 9 Nov 2005 15:21:26 -0800, wrote:
JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason Gastrich's effort wrote:
George Dance wrote:
JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason Gastrich's effort wrote:
Ronald Dean wrote:
Agnosticism is the most logical position to take.
Would that be agnostic theism, or agnostic atheism?
What's 'agnostic theism'?
theism without gnosis.
That sounds like believing without justification; which is the one
thing (by Huxley's definition) that agnostics do not do.
No. It's by honest theists who understand the difference between
belief and knowledge.
Agnostics single out one particular belief they don't have, and say
they don't know.
Countless agnostics (including me) have told you in the past that that
is not true; and you still insist on telling us that you know us better
than we do.
Pot. Kettle. Black. Perhaps one day you might actually take note that
an atheist isn't what you tell us.
And in spite of your protestation, you're treating somebody else's
belief rather more seriously than neutrally because there is no reason
to take it seriously.
I have no idea why they treat this one differently
than all the others. Or why they feel qualified to tell atheists we
have a position most of us don't.
Listen, pal, I know that you don't speak for me as an atheist; and
without any supporting evidence, I'm not going to believe that you
speak for 'most' atheists either. Unless you can prove otherwise, the
only 'positions' you have any authority to speak about are your own.
Got it?
Then why do you keep getting atheists wrong?
And why do you grant "I don't know" status to the theist's deity?
Liz nailed "Tedious George" indeed. I've stopped bothering with his
posts as they're the same drooling idiocy.
--
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
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as an atheist |
12 Nov 2005 11:17:33 AM |
|
|
stoney wrote:
Liz nailed "Tedious George" indeed. I've stopped bothering with his
posts as they're the same drooling idiocy.
Maybe if you got a little less 'stoney' before you went on-line, you'd
be able to better understand what you're reading.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as an atheist |
07 Nov 2005 07:43:09 PM |
|
|
On 7 Nov 2005 17:23:18 -0800, "George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason Gastrich's effort wrote:
Ronald Dean wrote:
Agnosticism is the most logical position to take.
Would that be agnostic theism, or agnostic atheism?
What's 'agnostic theism'?
The rare honest theist who applies the same standards to his belief
that he expects us to have about the strawman he attributes to us.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as an atheist |
07 Nov 2005 08:20:38 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 7 Nov 2005 17:23:18 -0800, "George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason Gastrich's effort wrote:
Ronald Dean wrote:
Agnosticism is the most logical position to take.
Would that be agnostic theism, or agnostic atheism?
What's 'agnostic theism'?
The rare honest theist who applies the same standards to his belief
that he expects us to have about the strawman he attributes to us.
Someone who tells me, "I believe only what I have good reasons or
evidence to believe" and "I believe in a god" either has some evidence,
or is being dishonest about one of his beliefs. So someone who calls
himself a 'theist agnostic' either has evidence, is being dishonest, or
simply does not understand one of the terms.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Richo" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as an atheist |
08 Nov 2005 04:36:01 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 7 Nov 2005 17:23:18 -0800, "George Dance" < >
wrote:
JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason Gastrich's effort wrote:
Ronald Dean wrote:
Agnosticism is the most logical position to take.
Would that be agnostic theism, or agnostic atheism?
What's 'agnostic theism'?
The rare honest theist who applies the same standards to his belief
that he expects us to have about the strawman he attributes to us.
Someone who tells me, "I believe only what I have good reasons or
evidence to believe"
Agnosticism as a principle.
and "I believe in a god" either has some evidence,
or is being dishonest about one of his beliefs. So someone who calls
himself a 'theist agnostic' either has evidence, is being dishonest, or
simply does not understand one of the terms.
Or he is agnostic in that he holds the position that "it is not
possible to know anything of God through empirical evidence and reason"
(Agnosticism as a position on the knowability of God ) and yet believes
anyway - Fidelism.
This contrasts with the standard theology of Catholicism (Augustine and
Aquinus) - that God is knowable by *both* reasoning about the real
world (knowledge in the sense used by Agnostics) and by revelation
(faith, revealed knowledge, mystical knowledge).
Poetically speaking you can know God with your "Head" or your "Heart".
There are two contrasting streams througout the history of christian
thought - from the Gnostics to modern times - of mysticism and the
belief that faith alone was needed and the Rationalism of Aquinus.
Interestingly:
The early Gnostics were Agnostics in the sense of holding the position
that the things of this world - including the evidence of your eyes
were all corruption and not to be trusted.
It seems counter -intuitive that Gnostics could be Ag - nostics - until
you understand that they are talking about completely different
meanings of "knowledge".
Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as an atheist |
08 Nov 2005 09:57:55 PM |
|
|
Richo wrote:
georgedance04@yahoo.ca wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 7 Nov 2005 17:23:18 -0800, "George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason Gastrich's effort wrote:
Ronald Dean wrote:
Agnosticism is the most logical position to take.
Would that be agnostic theism, or agnostic atheism?
What's 'agnostic theism'?
The rare honest theist who applies the same standards to his belief
that he expects us to have about the strawman he attributes to us.
Someone who tells me, "I believe only what I have good reasons or
evidence to believe"
Agnosticism as a principle.
Right. That's Huxley's principle, Clifford's principle; Ingersoll's
principle; agnosticism as those who called (and call) themselves
agnostics meant (and mean) it.
and "I believe in a god" either has some evidence,
or is being dishonest about one of his beliefs. So someone who calls
himself a 'theist agnostic' either has evidence, is being dishonest, or
simply does not understand one of the terms.
Or he is agnostic in that he holds the position that "it is not
possible to know anything of God through empirical evidence and reason"
Believing that does not make anyone an agnostic. Concluding "I don't
believe anything about gods, because it is not possible..." would; but
without that conclusion, one is not acting on the principle.
(Agnosticism as a position on the knowability of God ) and yet believes
anyway - Fidelism.
Fideism is the position that it is impossible to have certain evidence
of anything, and therefore that belief always requires faith; which is
the direct opposite of agnosticism, that declares it's not only
possible but desireable to not form beliefs based on faith alone.
This contrasts with the standard theology of Catholicism (Augustine and
Aquinus) - that God is knowable by *both* reasoning about the real
world (knowledge in the sense used by Agnostics) and by revelation
(faith, revealed knowledge, mystical knowledge).
Poetically speaking you can know God with your "Head" or your "Heart".
There are two contrasting streams througout the history of christian
thought - from the Gnostics to modern times - of mysticism and the
belief that faith alone was needed and the Rationalism of Aquinus.
Interestingly:
The early Gnostics were Agnostics in the sense of holding the position
that the things of this world - including the evidence of your eyes
were all corruption and not to be trusted.
It seems counter -intuitive that Gnostics could be Ag - nostics - until
you understand that they are talking about completely different
meanings of "knowledge".
And different things. The Gnostics (and not just them in the church)
believed they could not could not trust their evidence for the world
(and were agnostic about that), yet believed they could trust their
'knowledge' of god (and were gnostic about that). For the 19th century
agnostics, it was the other way around.
Thanks for your reasonable remarks, as always.
Mark.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason Gastrichs effort" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as an atheist |
09 Nov 2005 05:23:07 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 7 Nov 2005 17:23:18 -0800, "George Dance" < >
wrote:
JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason Gastrich's effort wrote:
Ronald Dean wrote:
Agnosticism is the most logical position to take.
Would that be agnostic theism, or agnostic atheism?
What's 'agnostic theism'?
The rare honest theist who applies the same standards to his belief
that he expects us to have about the strawman he attributes to us.
Someone who tells me, "I believe only what I have good reasons or
evidence to believe" and "I believe in a god" either has some evidence,
or is being dishonest about one of his beliefs. So someone who calls
himself a 'theist agnostic' either has evidence, is being dishonest, or
simply does not understand one of the terms.
From http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/sn-huxley.html
"...In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will
take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In
matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain
which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the
agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not
be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may
have in store for him..."
"That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth
of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically
justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my
opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism. ["Agnosticism and
Christianity", 1889]"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as an atheist |
08 Nov 2005 02:10:54 AM |
|
|
On 7 Nov 2005 18:20:38 -0800, wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 7 Nov 2005 17:23:18 -0800, "George Dance" < >
wrote:
JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason Gastrich's effort wrote:
Ronald Dean wrote:
Agnosticism is the most logical position to take.
Would that be agnostic theism, or agnostic atheism?
What's 'agnostic theism'?
The rare honest theist who applies the same standards to his belief
that he expects us to have about the strawman he attributes to us.
Someone who tells me, "I believe only what I have good reasons or
evidence to believe" and "I believe in a god" either has some evidence,
or is being dishonest about one of his beliefs. So someone who calls
himself a 'theist agnostic' either has evidence, is being dishonest, or
simply does not understand one of the terms.
No. He believes and admits he doesn't know. Belief and knowledge
aren't the same thing. Theism/atheism are orthogonal to agnosticism.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as an atheist |
08 Nov 2005 09:25:08 PM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 7 Nov 2005 18:20:38 -0800, wrote:
Christopher A. Lee wrote:
On 7 Nov 2005 17:23:18 -0800, "George Dance" < >
wrote:
JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason Gastrich's effort wrote:
Ronald Dean wrote:
Agnosticism is the most logical position to take.
Would that be agnostic theism, or agnostic atheism?
What's 'agnostic theism'?
The rare honest theist who applies the same standards to his belief
that he expects us to have about the strawman he attributes to us.
Someone who tells me, "I believe only what I have good reasons or
evidence to believe" and "I believe in a god" either has some evidence,
or is being dishonest about one of his beliefs. So someone who calls
himself a 'theist agnostic' either has evidence, is being dishonest, or
simply does not understand one of the terms.
No. He believes and admits he doesn't know.
In which case he also admits he doesn't know what agnosticism is -
agnosticism is not about believing things for no reason, but in not
doing that. . .
Belief and knowledge
aren't the same thing.
Theism/atheism are orthogonal to agnosticism.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as an atheist |
07 Nov 2005 08:43:50 PM |
|
|
georgedance wrote
: Someone who tells me, "I believe only what I have good reasons or
: evidence to believe" and "I believe in a god" either has some evidence,
: or is being dishonest about one of his beliefs. So someone who calls
: himself a 'theist agnostic' either has evidence, is being dishonest, or
: simply does not understand one of the terms.
There are those that consider agnosticism to be a fallacy. I agree.
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
It is the right and the duty of every person to rationally and skeptically
examine a proposition before accepting it, and if that proposition turns out
to not be supported by logic or evidence, it is the mark of a mature mind to
be able to set it aside and face life as it really is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as an atheist |
08 Nov 2005 09:18:22 PM |
|
|
Bear wrote:
georgedance wrote
: Someone who tells me, "I believe only what I have good reasons or
: evidence to believe" and "I believe in a god" either has some evidence,
: or is being dishonest about one of his beliefs. So someone who calls
: himself a 'theist agnostic' either has evidence, is being dishonest, or
: simply does not understand one of the terms.
There are those that consider agnosticism to be a fallacy. I agree.
--
Bear
Glad to hear it. Perhaps you can tell the agnostics here what their
fallacy is.
There but for circumstances go I.
It is the right and the duty of every person to rationally and skeptically
examine a proposition before accepting it, and if that proposition turns out
to not be supported by logic or evidence, it is the mark of a mature mind to
be able to set it aside and face life as it really is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as an atheist |
09 Nov 2005 12:14:06 AM |
|
|
"George Dance" wrote
: Bear wrote:
: > georgedance wrote
: > : Someone who tells me, "I believe only what I have good reasons or
: > : evidence to believe" and "I believe in a god" either has some
evidence,
: > : or is being dishonest about one of his beliefs. So someone who calls
: > : himself a 'theist agnostic' either has evidence, is being dishonest,
or
: > : simply does not understand one of the terms.
: >
: > There are those that consider agnosticism to be a fallacy. I agree.
: >
: > --
: > Bear
:
: Glad to hear it. Perhaps you can tell the agnostics here what their
: fallacy is.
http://www.objectivethought.com/atheism/agnostic.html
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
It is the right and the duty of every person to rationally and skeptically
examine a proposition before accepting it, and if that proposition turns out
to not be supported by logic or evidence, it is the mark of a mature mind to
be able to set it aside and face life as it really is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as an atheist |
13 Nov 2005 01:08:11 PM |
|
|
Bear wrote:
"George Dance" wrote
: Bear wrote:
: >
: > There are those that consider agnosticism to be a fallacy. I agree.
: > --
: > Bear
:
: Glad to hear it. Perhaps you can tell the agnostics here what their
: fallacy is.
http://www.objectivethought.com/atheism/agnostic.html
--
Bear
Thank you for the link. It certainly inspired a lot of thought on my
part, which it took me a while to write down; but I finally finished
that today. I hope you appreciate the result:
http://tinyurl.com/b4lwl
There but for circumstances go I.
It is the right and the duty of every person to rationally and skeptically
examine a proposition before accepting it, and if that proposition turns out
to not be supported by logic or evidence, it is the mark of a mature mind to
be able to set it aside and face life as it really is.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as an atheist |
13 Nov 2005 01:27:53 PM |
|
|
"George Dance" wrote
: Bear wrote:
: > "George Dance" wrote
: > : Bear wrote:
: > : >
: > : > There are those that consider agnosticism to be a fallacy. I agree.
: > :
: > : Glad to hear it. Perhaps you can tell the agnostics here what their
: > : fallacy is.
: >
: > http://www.objectivethought.com/atheism/agnostic.html
:
: Thank you for the link. It certainly inspired a lot of thought on my
: part, which it took me a while to write down; but I finally finished
: that today. I hope you appreciate the result:
:
: http://tinyurl.com/b4lwl
Your opinions noted.
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
It is the right and the duty of every person to rationally and skeptically
examine a proposition before accepting it, and if that proposition turns out
to not be supported by logic or evidence, it is the mark of a mature mind to
be able to set it aside and face life as it really is.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bear" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as an atheist |
06 Nov 2005 01:20:01 AM |
|
|
"bob young" wrote
: No gods, no atheists period
No problem.
--
Bear
There but for circumstances go I.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as an atheist |
27 Oct 2005 09:03:38 AM |
|
|
Tcozen wrote:
I have yet to meet a true atheist. Most 'atheists' I have met are
agnostics who don't yet know it.
IS THERE A GOD?
Strong Atheism's answer.
A BASIC DEFINITION OF GOD.
The general overarching definition of god as per
the major religions of the world is:
A. God is personal, God has will and consciousness.
B. God has free will.
C. God is the creator of all.
D. God is omnipotent.
E. God is omnibenevolent.
F. God is omniscient.
G. God is that which nothing more powerful
can be imagined.
These are the basic attributes that can be claimed
for the god of orthodox Judaism, Christianity,
Islam, and Hinduism.
Omnibenevolence and omniscience are actually
logically derivable from the claimed attribute of
omnipotence and so aren't not truly independent
attributes, and may be considered special aspects
of omnipotence.
There are other attributes of god, that he is the
only such god, that he is is immortal and that
god has always existed that are not important
for this discussion and for now, can be ignored.
They are secondary arguments and are for the most
part not foundational or truly necessary, except
those that can be logically derived from the
attributes listed above.
A CLASS OF GODS
It is important to note here that this is a
definition not for a particular god, but an
entire class of gods.
Sub-theories about god are not important here.
Christianity claims one may attain salvation
only through Jesus, Islam claims the Christian
dogma that Jesus was the son of god is
blasphemous.
Ideas like this though, are of little importance
to the overarching and general claims made for a
personal, creator, omni-everything god. I have
coined a term, The Grand God of Grand Theologies
for this sort of god, this sort of theological
system of expansive claims for god.
Grand theologies are those theologies that have
adopted this class of god as their basic
attributes concerning the nature of god. But it
is important to remember here that what is being
discussed here is a class of gods, not particular
gods or specific gods.
THE FOUR GREAT THEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS
Again, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism hold
to this basic Grand God and are typical Grand
Theologies holding to this basic class of god as
their basic definitions of what god is at god's
most basic level.
A big problem with this class of gods is, it
collapses rather easily into internal self
contradiction.
THE PROBLEM OF EVIL.
The problem of evil was first written down by
Epicurus in about the third century BCE.
Today's formulation is:
A. God is defined as omnipotent;
B. and as omnibenevolent.
C. Evil exists.
D. God therefore, is not omnipotent as claimed.
E. Or God is not omnibenevolent as claimed.
F. Or god is neither omnipotent or
omnibenevolent.
G. Or god is not existant.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE
The free will defense of the problem of evil goes
back to St. Augustine who popularized it. It is
still popular, and is championed most notably
today by Alvin Plantinga, but also by other
theologians.
God gave man free will. Man freely chooses to do
evil. Ability to do evil is less evil than
lacking free will.
THE FREE WILL DEFENSE DEBUNKED.
God has free will.
God is omnibenevolent, he has a good nature
incapable of doing evil.
A. If god can have free will, and a good nature,
this good nature is not allowed to count
against god's free will.
B. Nor is god's lack of ability to do evil
allowed to count against god's omnipotence.
C. Likewise, man could easily have a god like
free will and a god like good nature.
D. Inabilty then to do evil would no more count
against man's free will than it does for god's
free will.
E. If so, it also counts against god's free will
and god does not have free will as claimed.
F. If god does not have absolute and total free
will, thus free will is not a true necessity
at all.
F. If god is omnipotent and omnibenevolent, and
can give man a god like free will and a
god-like good nature incapable of moral evil,
god must do so or god is not moral, not
omnibenevolent.
G. Evil exists because he allows it to.
So free will does not exist, or it does and we can
have a god like free will and a god like good
nature. Either way, free will cannot explain away
the existence of evil. This free will defense
then, is a failed argument.
OMNISCIENCE VERSUS CREATORHOOD OF GOD
God is defined as creator of all in most
religions.
And god is claimed to be omniscient, all knowing.
A. God created the Universe and all in it.
B. God is omniscient, all knowing, he knows all
in the Universe and he knows the future of the
Universe and its contents.
C. If god creates a Universe, he will know that
in 13 billion years this Universe will have a
man named John Smith in it.
D. If John Smith is good and saved, or evil and
damned, God will know that.
E. As he knows that the Universe in its present
state will have a John Smith, god may then
contemplate the future state of Smith and
decide if he will tolerate an evil Smith.
F. If yes, Smith will be evil only because of a
specific personal and will choice made solely
by god.
G. If Smith is evil, then evil exists solely
because of a choice made by god. In fact all
moral evil done by creations of god will be
evil and do evil only because of personal and
willful creations of god allowing evil acts
to be done, by direct decision of god.
H. If evil exists in a world with an omniscient
creator god, it is solely and only because
god allows evil.
I. If evil exists solely because of personal
choices of god, god then is not as defined,
omnibenevolent.
J. Man and any other sentient being in such a
Universe cannot have any free will, not even
in principle. A Universe with a god that
creates all and knows all precludes free will
for all beings god creates in the strongest
possible manner.
The Grand God of Grand
Theology is thus self destroying, it is
incoherent and contradictory as a theory.
THE SITUATION SO FAR.
1. A minimalistic class of gods is defined, this
Grand God has been defined here with as few
terms as possible.
2. The problem of evil dooms such a claimed god.
3. The attempted defense, free will is fatally
flawed. God's good nature and free will doom
claims free will makes evil necessary for man
to have free will.
4. Omniscience and creatorhood of god further
doom claims of god's omnibenevolence and
man's free will free will cannot exist for
man. All evil is the direct and knowing
creation of god contradicting claims of
omnibenevolence.
5. Since Free will for man is totally impossible,
free will cannot be a good quality, much less
necessary.
Here, the Grand God of Grand Theology has
collapsed. As has Grand
Theology. As pointed out, this destroys the claims
and viability of an entire class of possible gods,
all secondary and tertiary claims for such a god of
this class also fail, as do dogmas or secondary
or tertiary claims.
If a these Grand Gods cannot exist as defined,
specific gods cannot, nor can claims such as this
or that Grand God sent this or that revelation to
man or some prophet or did this or that.
God is thus disprove and is utter irrelevant
to anything real and existant.
***********
OMNIPOTENCE AND OMNISCIENCE
A. Omnipotence is a special sort of attribute, of
all god's alledged attributes the most
important, because from that attribute you
can derive others attributes, including
omniscience. If one says for purposes of
argument god is omnipotent, one is also
implying god is also omniscient.
B. If god is omnipotent, god must also
specifically have omniscience because if
he does not have omniscience, one
cannot claim omnipotence as an attribute.
C. Thus if god is omnipotent, and created all,
free will is impossible because creation
and omniscience rule out free will as was
shown. In this world god supposedly created,
evil exists. So god must not be
omnibenevolent as claimed as all evil is
created by god if man cannot have free will.
D. So omnipotence and omnibenevolence are thus
mutually exclusive in a world that does in
fact have evil in it. Because omniscience
must exist as part of omnipotence and
omniscience and creatorhood cannot coexist
with free will, omnipotence is also not
compatible with creatorhood and
omnibenevolence. One cannot finesse this
all by ignoringomniscience or abandoning
omniscience.
E. One can only dispose of omniscience by also
explicitly abandoning omnipotence. If god is
defined as being omnibenevolent then a god
that is also allegedly also creator of all
must be evil.
CREATORHOOD OF GOD
F. One may be tempted to abandon the idea god
created all. But that creates some very strong
logical problems also.
G. If god is omnipotent, he can create all. Or
modify any other creation he does not himself
create. No other being or process may create
something god could not modify, because of the
power of his omniscience.
H. So if for purposes of argument, we claim the
Universe was not created by god, he could,
being omnipotent, change that creation for
his own purposes, that of creating good due
to his attribute of omnibenevolence.
We are back to the problem of evil again, he
could change creation such that no evil John
Smiths can exist.
If not he then is sole and only cause for
existence of all evil.
If god is omnibenevolent and omnipotent he
still must modify any creations he did not
himself create to destroy evil, if he can
do so. So claiming god did not create all
does not save the concept of an omnipotent,
omnibenevolent god. It cannot avoid the
problem of evil.
I. Omniscience means we cannot dodge the problem
of evil by stating god did not create the
Universe even if one wished to, nor by limiting
his creatorhood, for example saying god did not
create the original material of the Universe,
but used it as a building material.
J. Thus to get rid of the creator problem, we must
explicitly abandon it all and totally. Only by
doing so could one get around the problem of
creatorhood and omniscience. But if we say god
cannot either create the Universe or modify it
as he finds it, we drop omniscience also,
explicitly. God then turns out not to be
creator of all nor omnipotent as a priori
defined, a contradiction disproving that
a priori defined god.
K. If evil exists because god could change the
Universe he did not create, and he fails to do
so, then all evil exists solely because
of knowing and personal choices god makes.
L. God being omnipotent cannot be controlled by
any other process or other entities. He may
modify any works or creations made by them.
M. If god cannot change creations of others, or
the pre-existing materials of the Universe,
omnipotence in not an attribute of god as
claimed a priori.
M. Omnipotence and creatorhood thus are entangled
in a manner that makes it hard to abandon the
doctrine god created all and if one does, one
must likewise abandon claims of omnipotence.
PRE-EXISTING MATTER AND A PRE-EXISTING UNIVERSE.
The Greek writer Hesiod in his Theogony, starts
with a Universe that is a chaotic void. This
void, through the mysterious property of
emanation, created the first generation of gods,
the Titans, who in their turn created the
Olympians gods who eventually displace the
Titans as rulers of the world.
Likewise, some theologians see Genesis as
representing god creating the world out of a
similar void, a primordial sea god did not
himself create, but used as raw material for
his creations.
God's existence is not explained.
This idea god did not create all still would not
absolve an omnipotent god from responsibility
for evil. The biblical god if he did not create
the Universe and its component materials used them
as he pleased. If that god is omnipotent, then he
bears all responsibility for the world he did
create out of pre-existing material. Whether
this god is said to be eternal or like Hesiod's
Titans was somehow emanated from the chaos of
the void does not materially change any arguments
involving omnipotence, omniscience or
omnibenevolence, if god is said to have these
attributes.
************************************************
ATTRIBUTES OF GOD PART THREE
Does god create the rules, the laws, the logic of
the Universe or not? Is 2 + 2 = 4 something god
set as part of the nature of the Universe or is
that outside and beyond god?
Can god change 2 + 2 to 5?
A. If god did in fact make the rules and laws and
logic of the Universe, god could also change
them as needed.
B. A god that creates the rules.laws and logic
of the world he creates could simply make a
world where man has free will yet freely
chooses only to do moral good. Since god
creates the rules of the Universe, he could
change them in name of omnibenevolence, free
will is perserved and evil is banished. Evil
no longer needs to exist to allow for free
will.
C. If god could do this and fails to, evil
exists solely and only because of god's
failure to use his omnipotence to change
the rules and laws and logic of the Universe
to give man free will and a nature incapable
of doing evil.
D. If god can do this and fails to, god is not
omnibenevolent as claimed, a contradiction
in definitions of god as omnibenevolent and
omnipotent.
E. God in fact since he is essentially the
creator and sustaining cause of all evil
that was, is, and shall be is omni-malevolent.
F. If god does not make the rules, the laws, the
very logic of the Universe, then we have the
problem of what these things are and where
they come from.
G. If these laws and rules and logic limit god,
then god is obviously not omnipotent as
claimed.
H. And thus god is not as claimed, the greatest
thing that can be imagined. Obviously laws
and rules and logic that limit the most
powerful in the Universe are greater
still because they do in fact limit such
a being.
I. If such laws and rules and logic outside and
beyond god do exist, and are thus greater
than god, god is not the greatest thing
imaginable and all ontological 'proofs' that
are based on that basic claim fail.
J. Such rules and laws and logic must exist
outside of god's control and must have always
bee outside his control. If there were ever
in god's control, god cannot have reduced his
power to abandon omnipotence voluntarily.
Omnipotence is an inherent ability. It would
be like abandoning a sense of taste or touch.
This observation forstalls attempts at
apologisms claiming god abandoned any
abilities.
K. And if god could indeed abandon omnipotence,
he must avoid that. After all, he is also
omnibenevolent. Omnibenevolence dictates he
must at all times do the good thing, never an
evil thing. Abandoning omnipotence such that
he could no longer create a world where man
has free will, and a nature incapable of evil
is to allow evil to exist. To abandon
omnipotence is to embrace the proposition
evil is to be allowed to flourish. So any
claims god might have for some greater good
abandoned omnipotence freely are not possible.
L. If god is said to be omnipotent, if he at
anytime gave up any abilities he can no
longer said to be omnipotent, if he actually
gave up any abilities.
M. Since god must have had maximum power and
abilities and cannot have at any time
voluntarilyy relinquished any powers or
abilities, at least in the name of banishing
evil the fact that there are laws and rules
and logic of a universe outside and beyond
god, they aretrulyy beyond and outside god,
and always were.
N. Since such laws and rules and laws are outside
god, and always were so,and are properties of
the Universe, the Universe is likewise outside
and beyond god, with its laws and rules and
logic.
O. Since the Universe and its laws and rules and
logic are outside and beyond god, god is not
as, creator of all.
P. Since the Universe no longer relies on god for
its purportedexistencee, nor on god for the
existencee of its laws and rules and logic,
god is no longer a necessary being. If there
are things that have necessaryexistencee, it
would have to be the Universe as whole, or
possibly its laws, its rules or its logic,
or a subset of these rules or laws or the
underlying causes of these things, if any.
None were created by god or can be modified
by god.
Q. If these laws and rules and logic could be
modified by god, then the rules and laws
and logic of the Universe would have been
modified to enexistencece of evil, and must
be modified this if god is actually
omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
R. God then is not omnipotent, or not
omnibenevolent, or is neither, or
does not exist.
THE ATTRIBUTES AND NATURE OF GOD IN LIGHT OF THE
ABOVE EXAMINATION OF GOD
Thus the idea god is omnipotent, omnibenevolent,
and creator of all, clash again
and mutually self-destruct over the issue of
evil'existencece. This raises
serious questions on the nature of the Universe
that cannot be as Grand Theology
claims it is.
A. We have shown god cannot have created the
Universe.
B. We have shown god does not create the laws,
rules and laws of that Universe.
C. That god is thus not omnipotent as these laws
limit him.
D. That god is not the greatest imaginable thing.
E. That ontological proofs of god'existencece
based on claims god is the greatest thing
imaginable are failed arguments.
F. That god cannot be a necessary being, as
claimed.
G. That any possible claims god might for some
reason abandon or limit any abilities cannot
be true in any attempt to avoid this line of
inquiry. Nor can that approach derail logical
examination of consequences of Grand
Theology's overarching claims to god's
attributes or nature.
The fact that god iallegedlyly omnibenevolent and
evil exists, demonstrates god cannot make the
rules of the world. 2 + 2 = 4 because that is
the nature of the Universe, not something god
created.Because if god did create the rules and
laws and logic of the Universe, and was
omnibenevolent, we should have no signs of evil,
especially moral evil of man, Satan, demons and
devils.
But if one admits to that, Many other important
claims collapse, many other arguments about god
and his attributes and nature no longer are
viable. Some of these claims, god's creation
of the Universe are among the oldest and most
basic of theology.
Ontological proofs started with Anselm in the
10th century, all of these now must be abandoned.
The necessary being argument, long a rhetorical
argument is now finally dead.
Free will defenses against the problem of evil
opened up a line of attack here that is powerful
and very final.
**************************************************
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as an atheist |
27 Oct 2005 10:13:19 AM |
|
|
Tcozen wrote:
I have yet to meet a true atheist. Most 'atheists' I have met are
agnostics who don't yet know it.
It's all about how we describe ourselves. I choose to call myself a
weak atheist, rather than an agnostic, because agnostics seem to hold
the position that the existence and non existence of gods are equally
likely propositions. Weak atheists, on the other hand, say that the
concept of god does not inherently have any more credibility than the
concept of leprechauns. We view it as silly to take anything other than
the default position (lack of belief) until evidence suggests
otherwise.
As I'm sure you already know, since you are after all just a troll,
there are indeed strong atheists that claim to have logically disproven
the concept of gods. They actively disbelieve in gods, and even you
cannot justify calling them agnostics. Now I myself don't think it's
worth the effort any more than logically disproving merpeople. They're
far fetched claims, and the fact that lots of people believe them does
not lend them any more credence.
If you'd like to call me agnostic, fine. Who really cares? You're just
another theist troll that tries to prove that we're not what we say we
are. What confuses me is why it's so important to you people that you
have to rationalize that atheists don't exist. Is this similar to the
one where you guys think we've all seen evidence of your god, but
atheists and agnostics are just hiding because we don't want to face
judgment?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "North Korean Tourist Board" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as an atheist |
27 Oct 2005 03:23:29 AM |
|
|
Tcozen wrote:
I have yet to meet a true atheist. Most 'atheists' I have met are
agnostics who don't yet know it.
Most theists don't get that atheists believe in one fewer god than they
do.
Why is that so difficult for them to understand? By the same token why
can't theists say that they are agnostic regarding Zeus and Thor?
I don't know if the Invisible Pink Unicorn (Blessed be Her Holy hooves)
exists, so I am also agnostic as regards her. And so it goes on. We
can discuss semantics all day. What's the point - I only accept that
which exists in the current empirically-described reality - there is no
"god" in that reality ergo god(s) do not exist (Except guitar gods)
.
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as an atheist |
27 Oct 2005 11:32:02 PM |
|
|
North Korean Tourist Board wrote:
Tcozen wrote:
I have yet to meet a true atheist. Most 'atheists' I have met are
agnostics who don't yet know it.
Most theists don't get that atheists believe in one fewer god than they
do.
Why is that so difficult for them to understand? By the same token why
can't theists say that they are agnostic regarding Zeus and Thor?
I don't know if the Invisible Pink Unicorn (Blessed be Her Holy hooves)
exists, so I am also agnostic as regards her. And so it goes on. We
can discuss semantics all day. What's the point - I only accept that
which exists in the current empirically-described reality - there is no
"god" in that reality ergo god(s) do not exist (Except guitar gods)
Atheists do not believe in dragons, evil spirits, devils, angels, heavenly
hosts, lucifers, seraphims, wood nymphs, spirits, fiends, elves,
leprachauns, fairies,
Hell, Hedes, paradise, ghouls, vampires or gods.
Bob
Humanist Brit.
Hong kong
"The atheist does not say "there is no God," he says "I know not what you
mean by God; I am without idea of God; the word 'God' is to me a sound
conveying no clear or distinct affirmation. ... The Bible God I deny; the
Christian God I disbelieve in; but I am not rash enough to say there is no
God as long as you tell me you are unprepared to define God to me.""
[Charles Bradlaugh, "Plea for Atheism"]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as an atheist |
13 Nov 2005 06:28:06 AM |
|
|
North Korean Tourist Board wrote:
Tcozen wrote:
I have yet to meet a true atheist. Most 'atheists' I have met are
agnostics who don't yet know it.
Most theists don't get that atheists believe in one fewer god than they
do.
Why is that so difficult for them to understand? By the same token why
can't theists say that they are agnostic regarding Zeus and Thor?
Because theists are not agnostic regarding Zeus and Thor? Either a
theists believes in Zeus and Thor, in which case he believes on faith
that they exist; or he believes in some other gods, in which case he
believes on faith that Zeus and Thor do not exist.
One could describe the second type as 'atheist' wrt Zeus and Thor, but
not as 'agnostic' wrt them.
I don't know if the Invisible Pink Unicorn (Blessed be Her Holy hooves)
exists, so I am also agnostic as regards her. And so it goes on. We
can discuss semantics all day. What's the point - I only accept that
which exists in the current empirically-described reality - there is no
"god" in that reality ergo god(s) do not exist (Except guitar gods)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as an atheist |
27 Oct 2005 03:45:18 AM |
|
|
On 27 Oct 2005 01:23:29 -0700, "North Korean Tourist Board"
<north_korean_tourist_board@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tcozen wrote:
I have yet to meet a true atheist. Most 'atheists' I have met are
agnostics who don't yet know it.
Most theists don't get that atheists believe in one fewer god than they
do.
Why is that so difficult for them to understand? By the same token why
can't theists say that they are agnostic regarding Zeus and Thor?
Apparently it is. The problem is that they look at the world theough
the perspective that theirs is real and the others aren't. So WRT Zeus
and Thor there's nothing to be agnostic about because they're figures
from fairy stories.
They lie about our being agnostic because they filter what they are
told as though it were as real for us as it is for them, and we just
don't know that yet.
Another part of the problem is their stupid false trichotomy which
won't allow us to have any other position than believing it exists,
believing it doesn't and not knowing either way. It's impossible for
them to let anybody see it in the same light as they see Thor or Zeus.
I don't know if the Invisible Pink Unicorn (Blessed be Her Holy hooves)
exists, so I am also agnostic as regards her. And so it goes on. We
can discuss semantics all day. What's the point - I only accept that
which exists in the current empirically-described reality - there is no
"god" in that reality ergo god(s) do not exist (Except guitar gods)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as an atheist |
27 Oct 2005 08:42:53 AM |
|
|
Tcozen wrote:
I have yet to meet a true atheist. Most 'atheists' I have met are
agnostics who don't yet know it.
This gets tedious, but it bears repeating:
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god
than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible
gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"[W]e have never held that moral disapproval, without any other asserted
state interest, is a sufficient rationale under the Equal Protection
Clause to justify a law that discriminates among groups of persons."
- Sandra Day O`Conner, _Lawrence v Texas_
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=02-102
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: No such thing as an atheist |
27 Oct 2005 11:42:03 AM |
|
|
on 27 Oct 2005 in alt.atheism, dear sweet Tcozen (tcozen@gmail.com) made
the light shine upon us with this:
I have yet to meet a true atheist.
How long have you been studying the bagpipes?
Most 'atheists' I have met are
agnostics who don't yet know it.
I see. Then you are saying this is true only for the miniscule subset of
atheists that you have met. Ever been to Northern Europe?
--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
----
"The world is only 5-6 thousand years old does not mean the planet
earth is only 5-6 thousand years old. There have been many worlds
created and destroyed on this planet. The creation of the planet is
described in Genesis 1. The creation of the world is described in
Genesis 2. Two different kind of creations." --Eric Brze
.
|
|
|
|
