Fundamental Atheism and the Conflicting Ideas Problem.

I think you need a course in better communication.Firstly,insisting that you were right all along to write "literal" instead of "absolute" does NOT modify the statement (just the opposite - it's a refusal to make the correction you implicitly agreed with).Secondly simply following "literal" with "(absolute)" simply claims that "literal" means "absolute". That is really only useful when clarifying possible meanings of the word - but "absolute" in the sense of "absolute certainty" (the usage relevant to this discussion) is NOT a possibly meaning of "literal".So to claim that you clearly modified "literal" with "absolutely" is wrong.

quote:

---

Ooops: looks like atheism has at least one tenet: the belief or doctrine that there is no god ... your evidence that contracycle is "correct" just evaporated.

---

Nope, thats still nonsense I'm afraid. Look, tyhere are no fundamentalist gardners, either. Gardning is an activity, its commonly practiced, it can be given the label "gardening" and that will be meaningful to most observers. It might even be viable to speak of "fanatical" gardners. But there can be no fundamentalist gardners, becuase there is no doctrine of gardening.Now, while I know that theists sometimes like to paint atheism as a sort of conspiracy by unwitting dupes of satan to fool the public, there is no doctrine of atheism. Nobody undergoes a course or passes a test to be an atheist; there is no catechism, no personal relationship, no moment in which the spirit fills you or feel the Word move upon the face of the earth. There is no commonality of positions in any meaningful way. And yet, becuase this group of people CAN be sepearted from the remainder, it is entirely valid to label them as non-believers, or atheists. That is a DESCRIPTIVE term. But that term does not imply a dotcrine to which allegiance is given.In other words, this is another word game. There can be no fundamentalist atheists.

oh come now. (absolutely) literalis not (absolutely true)and a belief that it is (absolutely) literally true does not make it absolute truth eitherdo you have a point somewhere? I'm having trouble understanding what your particular problem is. delete (absolutely) from post #6 if you object to the word - it doesn't change it in my mind at all, or the intent of the post.or is this the kind of misdirection away from the topic that is the other typical approach to a (verboten to fundies) topic?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

more strawmen not the case at all. LOL. you are assuming a belief in "satan" now to further your argument.atheism is just a belief that there is no god.that doesn't make the belief any more factual than any belief that there is a god.perhaps you could show us how agnosticism is not logical? and why a skeptic should not be an agnostic?enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

it's hard to argue with fundamentalist believers that refuse to accept certain arguments as even possible ... right?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Since these guys consider it to be literally true that God does not exist are they "fundamental atheists" ?Sea of Faith Network | Home Page(Quotes are from A Reasonable Faith available on the above site) Yet the text goes on to insist that - despite taking the view that God does not literally exist - the Sea of Faith is not properly labelled as "atheism" let alone "Fundamental Atheism".

In Message 3 I asked if the definition of "fundamental atheism" should be restricted to those who were certain that God did not exist rahter than including those who tentatively held that the statement "God does not exist" was true in a literal sense.Your Message 6 was a reply to that and clearly indicated that you agreed to my suggestion, since you only quoted my suggested alternative and went on to state:

quote:

---

to hold a belief is to accept it as true according to the information available to date. the question is whether one is open to revising that opinion should evidence to the contrary become available: will the person revise their {world view} to incorporate the new information or will the new information be rejected as {nonsense}?

---

Which really has nothing to do with whether the statemnt "God does not exist" is read figuratively or literally.Yet now you have gone back on all that to state that you REALLY meant only that anyonw who beleives statement "God does not exist" read in an ABSOLUTELY literal sense shoudl be considered a "fundamental atheist" no matter how willing they might be to revise that view if further evidence became available. And you suggest that I am engaged in misdirection ?To repeat the point, "literal" is the wrong word, if you mean what you stated in Message 6. Is it really so hard to admit that you made one little mistake ?

quote:

---

not the case at all. LOL. you are assuming a belief in "satan" now to further your argument.

---

No, I am reporting to you things that christians have said to me about atheists.

quote:

---

atheism is just a belief that there is no god.

---

Nope. Atheism is the absence of theism. That is all. Thats what the word says.

quote:

---

perhaps you could show us how agnosticism is not logical? and why a skeptic should not be an agnostic?

---

Oh, I have done so repeatedly - as you manifest failure to confirm or deny whether you leave milk out for the brownies demonstrates.Agnosticism is a ridiculous position, less rational than either theism or atheism. A theist claims knowledge of things not in evidence, but at least procedes rationally from that basis. An atheist acts only on things in evidence, and consistentl;y from that point. The agnostic considers both the real and the unreal as of equal status; and this absurd starting position leads them necessarily to illogical positions, such as accepting some things not in evidence and rejecting others, despite acknoiwledging that there is no reason to do so.Agnosticism is wholly illogical. I believe its popularity is based on cowardice and the fetish for taking the "middle" or "moderate" path.

color for emPHASis.{added by edit}
they are missing "new age" music on their site ... seems to me like another IDist kind of approach? {{we won't define the <> we believe in but start a whole movement based on it}}? that's my impression anyway. what do you think?

​

This message has been edited by RAZD, 04*05*2005 08:21 PM

​

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I'd still like to get back the idea of scepticism. Okay, atheism is defined as the belief that there is no god. But if atheism arises from scepticism, then it is much more than just that. It is just one prong of the wider belief that there are no fairies, angels, leprechauns, unicorns, dragons, etc. The god part of it is just one part of scepticism that you happen to be concerned with.Atheism that is based in scepticism is far superior to theism in that it is at least a consistent world view. As a theist, you have basically no idea of which god to believe in. you can believe in allah on monday, jesus on tuesday, odin on wednesday, and all of the above for the rest of the week. An atheist, on the other hand, will tend to find that his beliefs are consistent with the rest of his intellectual outlook and his experience of the universe, from monday to sunday. it's a nice feeling, you should try it!mick

Are YOU agnostic about Venus, the Godess of Love? I mean are you agnostic about her existence as a deity? If not, why not? If so, are there any deities that you do not believe may exist?

I still do not see your problem.the fundamental atheist will reject the idea that his {world view} needs to change to incorporate the new idea, this leave his with rejecting the concept as nonsense.as I have said before, it is okay to {say\think\feel} that: what this {msg#1} definition amounts to is a distinction between two kinds of atheists:one that recognizes what they know and the limits of that knowledge, mixed with recognition of what they believe, and mixed with a skeptical awareness of the differences between the two. this is your common "just don't believe in god" atheist. they also know that they do not know, that it is belief and not knowledge. they are willing to change their {world view} if the evidence warrents it.the other apparently fails to see the distinction between belief and knowledge and convince themselves that they know there is no god. these have also been called "anti-theists" because they are usually quite verbal about their distain for all theists, agnostics, and uncommitted atheists ... very much like the fundamentalist christian is distainful of all atheists, agnostics, theists and uncommitted christians ...my distinction in msg #6 is again between these two groups, the common definition atheist and the fundamental atheist.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

So you are ascribing to me the comments of other people who happen to have beliefs quite different from mine, and you think this is a valid form of debate? And here I was, worried that you had found me out, pushing my nefarious deist agenda onto an unsuspecting population - determined to convert them all to avid followers of the deist "belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation" and especially in the cultish tenet that everyone decides what they believe ... darn. Actually it isn't. I have posted the definition twice. The definition specifies "the doctrine or belief that there is no God"agnosticism is also an absence of theism as are some forms of deism (specifically ones that believe that god no longer exists), so obviously that is insufficient as a definition of atheist.But even beyond that, in spite of your definition you are taking exception to my subcatgegory definition of "fundamental atheist" which definitly specifies that it is about believing that "there is no god" is literally true, as opposed to the common atheist that "just doesn't believe in god" (which is close to your definition). If you are a common atheist then there is no need to get all bent out of shape over the definition of "fundamental atheist" and if you are a fundamental atheist then using a lesser definition than you subscribe to is equivocating.I happen to think you are equivocating, but that is my opinion.your blindness to agnosticism is amazing. the milk for the brownies shows just how much you misunderstand the concept: it appears you think that any doubt about the non-existence of {A} is equal to a fervant belief in the existence and worship of {A}. You only allow (1) and (2) to be answers and deny that (3) has any validity.again this appears to be rejecting as "nonsense" any idea that conflicts with your {world view} just as you did with sexual selection in humans.perhaps you would like to answer (1) (2) or (3) to the following: Some people think there is more evidence for each of these than there is for your brownies ...enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Then start a thread on it. Meanwhile, in answer to the argument from incredulity: Perhaps you need to understand more to be more understanding.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

I am a deist. it's in the signature. and I have no problem with not believing in many things ... including dark matter and energy (I'm holding out for dark gravity).I also recognize what I believe is different from what I know.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}