Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8929 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-26-2019 3:11 AM
31 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,465 Year: 15,501/19,786 Month: 2,224/3,058 Week: 82/516 Day: 3/79 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
678910
11
Author Topic:   Mythology and Belief of Anti-Theism
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 151 of 165 (620020)
06-13-2011 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by AZPaul3
06-06-2011 2:00 AM


Re: Guilty of Heresy in Athiest Court
If we have no knowledge of such a thing then why entertain any notion of efficacy?

Who's entertaining anything?

Is this not giving due credence to my whim and by extension then to every whim?

Of course not.

And if the credence is 'due', as you describe it, what would be wrong if we were giving it?

Jon


Love your enemies!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by AZPaul3, posted 06-06-2011 2:00 AM AZPaul3 has acknowledged this reply

  
Omnivorous
Member (Idle past 1201 days)
Posts: 3808
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005


Message 152 of 165 (620036)
06-13-2011 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Dr Adequate
05-24-2011 12:47 AM


Re: Topic Synopsis 1
Dr Adequate writes:

Absence of evidence is not proof of absence, but it is certainly evidence of it, and is in fact tacitly taken to be so by the universal consent of mankind...

Oft thought, ne'er so well expressed.



Dost thou think, because thou art virtuous, there shall be no more cakes and ale?
-Shakespeare

Real things always push back.
-William James


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-24-2011 12:47 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

    
ScientificBob
Member (Idle past 2496 days)
Posts: 48
From: Antwerp, Belgium
Joined: 03-29-2011


Message 153 of 165 (620405)
06-16-2011 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 137 by New Cat's Eye
05-31-2011 9:43 AM


Re: definition
Atheism means "the absence of theism".

Seriously, you have never heared of "weak atheism" and "strong atheism".

Strong atheism is what includes the claim that no gods exist.
It's essentially the difference between agnostic atheism and gnostic atheism.

"I don't believe in" vs "there's no such thing".

Again: you need to actively believe certain claims to be a theist. If you do not have that positive belief, then you are not a theist. If you are not a theist, you are an atheist.

I can't say it in a simpler way.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by New Cat's Eye, posted 05-31-2011 9:43 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-16-2011 10:45 AM ScientificBob has not yet responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 154 of 165 (620415)
06-16-2011 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by ScientificBob
06-16-2011 8:58 AM


Re: definition
Again: you need to actively believe certain claims to be a theist. If you do not have that positive belief, then you are not a theist. If you are not a theist, you are an atheist.

I can't say it in a simpler way.

Its not that I don't understand your position, its that I know that your position is wrong.

The word "atheism" comes from the greek root àthe(os) - which means godless - + ism.

The dictionary defines it as:

quote:
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

So this claim of yours:

Atheism means "the absence of theism".

is simply false.

Now, I realize that today people do use the word "atheism" to mean "not theism", but as I said, this is pulling back from the strength of the claim - thus the "weak atheism" that, yes, I have heard of.

Strong atheism is what includes the claim that no gods exist.
It's essentially the difference between agnostic atheism and gnostic atheism.

"I don't believe in" vs "there's no such thing".

Well yeah, its not to hard to find irrationality in the claim that there's no such thing as god. That's one of the reasons that the neo-atheists of today have pulled back a bit.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by ScientificBob, posted 06-16-2011 8:58 AM ScientificBob has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by crashfrog, posted 06-16-2011 12:31 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply
 Message 156 by hooah212002, posted 06-16-2011 1:07 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 155 of 165 (620424)
06-16-2011 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by New Cat's Eye
06-16-2011 10:45 AM


Re: definition
Well yeah, its not to hard to find irrationality in the claim that there's no such thing as god.

Really?

Despite the fact that disbelief in at least some gods is a position held by all human beings?

Just because we take something and apply the label "god" to it, doesn't remove our capacity to arrive at sensible conclusions about it. Those conclusions might even be related to whether or not it exists.

Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-16-2011 10:45 AM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 55 days)
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 156 of 165 (620434)
06-16-2011 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by New Cat's Eye
06-16-2011 10:45 AM


Re: definition
Well yeah, its not to hard to find irrationality in the claim that there's no such thing as god.

quote:
Well yeah, its not to hard to find irrationality in the claim that there's no such thing as leprechauns.

Well yeah, its not to hard to find irrationality in the claim that there's no such thing as unicorns.

Well yeah, its not to hard to find irrationality in the claim that there's no such thing as Zeus.

Well yeah, its not to hard to find irrationality in the claim that there's no such thing as His Noodley Holiness (praise be his pasta).

Well yeah, its not to hard to find irrationality in the claim that there's no such thing as Ra.

Well yeah, its not to hard to find irrationality in the claim that there's no such thing as Spiderman (hell, he has movies so we BETTER believe).


Remind me, what makes your particular deity so special?

In the event you meant god in the general sense (pretty sure you didn't, though): I personally think that believing in invisible all-powerful beings to be the irrational belief.

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.


"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square
This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-16-2011 10:45 AM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by Jon, posted 06-16-2011 1:19 PM hooah212002 has responded
 Message 159 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-16-2011 2:17 PM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

    
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 157 of 165 (620436)
06-16-2011 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by hooah212002
06-16-2011 1:07 PM


Re: definition
I personally think that believing in invisible all-powerful beings to be the irrational belief.

So very true. So very true.

On a side note: Have any of the last couple pages of discussion been related to the topic?

Jon


Love your enemies!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by hooah212002, posted 06-16-2011 1:07 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by hooah212002, posted 06-16-2011 1:43 PM Jon has responded

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 55 days)
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 158 of 165 (620438)
06-16-2011 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Jon
06-16-2011 1:19 PM


Re: definition
Yes. How is discussing atheism not related to a topic that is criticizing atheism?


"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square
This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Jon, posted 06-16-2011 1:19 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by Jon, posted 06-16-2011 3:16 PM hooah212002 has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 159 of 165 (620440)
06-16-2011 2:17 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by hooah212002
06-16-2011 1:07 PM


Re: definition
In the event you meant god in the general sense (pretty sure you didn't, though):

No, I did.

I'm not saying the disbelief *must be* irrational, but that it easily *can be* and when it is its obvious. There's context here, and I's borrowing phraseology...

I personally think that believing in invisible all-powerful beings to be the irrational belief.

Sure, it can be and usually is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by hooah212002, posted 06-16-2011 1:07 PM hooah212002 has acknowledged this reply

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 160 of 165 (620441)
06-16-2011 2:33 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by anglagard
06-13-2011 6:59 PM


Re: Guilty of Heresy in Athiest Court
A writes:

Actually, your comment is my point. Evidence is not proof. That is one reason why I consider this entire line of discussion, as well as the concept of evangelical atheism, ironic to the first degree.

But the "evangelical atheists" (as you call them) such as Dawkins don't claim proof or certainty. Dawkins specifically cites a form of tentative improbability.

A writes:

Yes, according to realism and pragmatism, these are the best arguments for atheism. Are realism and pragmatism proven?

I am not sure what proof has to do with anything here?

A writes:

Is science a subset of philosophy?

It's a demonstrably reliable method of investigation that can lead to high confidence albeit tentative conclusions.

A writes:

And is it not a supreme irony that Dawkins gives Pantheism, Taoism, Deism, and Unitarianism a free pass in chapter 1 of the God Delusion, yet argues against the self-definition of Agnosticism in chapter 2?

I am not sure what exactly you are referring to here. Can you elaborate?

A writes:

Arguing against individuals being allowed to self-describe their belief system seems a bit authoritarian to me.

Did Dawkins do that?

A writes:

If using the term agnostic means atheist-lite, then just reset the Google translator in your brain, don't pretend to become the dictator of the English language. (not meant for you in particular, but rather a more universal disagreement with Dawkins and his followers, in this case).

I think Dawkins is not so much translating "agnostic" into atheist-lite so much as dismissing the notion that atheism refers to some sort of absolute philosophical certainty rather than evidence based tentativity.

A writes:

Pardon me for not including Russell in this discussion as a forefather, but he is the dude who thought all reality could be reduced to logical constructions - that is, until Wittgenstein.

Well as you haven't I will - Russel writes:

quote:
"To my mind the essential thing is that one should base one's arguments upon the kind of grounds that are accepted in science, and one should not regard anything that one accepts as quite certain, but only as probable in a greater or a less degree. Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by anglagard, posted 06-13-2011 6:59 PM anglagard has not yet responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 161 of 165 (620446)
06-16-2011 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by hooah212002
06-16-2011 1:43 PM


Re: definition
How is discussing atheism not related to a topic that is criticizing atheism?

The discussion seems to be centering on distinctions between atheism, agnosticism, and non-theism. But this could never be on topic, since the OP clearly lays out extreme atheism/anti-theism as the relevant group.

Fence riders just don't fall into this category.

Why is there so much discussion going into them?

Jon


Love your enemies!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by hooah212002, posted 06-16-2011 1:43 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by hooah212002, posted 06-16-2011 3:24 PM Jon has responded
 Message 164 by anglagard, posted 06-17-2011 11:41 PM Jon has not yet responded

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 55 days)
Posts: 3183
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 162 of 165 (620447)
06-16-2011 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Jon
06-16-2011 3:16 PM


Re: definition
Since there is no clear cut line as to what being an atheist is, it seems. Kinda hard to discuss extreme atheism when you can't pinpoint what an atheist is or is not.


"Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square
This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Jon, posted 06-16-2011 3:16 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Jon, posted 06-16-2011 4:32 PM hooah212002 has not yet responded

    
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 163 of 165 (620458)
06-16-2011 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by hooah212002
06-16-2011 3:24 PM


Re: definition
Kinda hard to discuss extreme atheism when you can't pinpoint what an atheist is or is not.

But can we not agree on what an extreme atheist/anti-theist is?

I'd think this would be a rather clear classification, it being too far from the fence to warrant uncertainty.

Jon


Love your enemies!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by hooah212002, posted 06-16-2011 3:24 PM hooah212002 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-19-2011 3:56 AM Jon has not yet responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2200
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 164 of 165 (620587)
06-17-2011 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by Jon
06-16-2011 3:16 PM


Re: definition
Jon writes:

The discussion seems to be centering on distinctions between atheism, agnosticism, and non-theism. But this could never be on topic, since the OP clearly lays out extreme atheism/anti-theism as the relevant group.

Fence riders just don't fall into this category.

Why is there so much discussion going into them?

Jon

Yes, am off topic despite the ironic humor relative to the OP I have found in those who state they are the self-appointed emperor of the English language.

Therefore I am out of here. Should anyone choose to debate whether or not one should be allowed to use the term agnostic because it is not politically correct, I am easy to contact, my new email address is in my profile.

Later Jon, good luck.


The idea of the sacred is quite simply one of the most conservative notions in any culture, because it seeks to turn other ideas - uncertainty, progress, change - into crimes.
— Salman Rushdie

This rudderless world is not shaped by vague metaphysical forces. It is not God who kills the children. Not fate that butchers them or destiny that feeds them to the dogs. It’s us. Only us. - the character Rorschach in Watchmen


This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Jon, posted 06-16-2011 3:16 PM Jon has not yet responded

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16097
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 165 of 165 (620641)
06-19-2011 3:56 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by Jon
06-16-2011 4:32 PM


Re: definition
But can we not agree on what an extreme atheist/anti-theist is?

Last I checked, these categories include, respectively, anyone who has ever said anything in favor of atheism and anyone who has ever said anything critical of religion (unless the religion is Islam in which case they're just being patriotic).

This pretty much narrows it down to those atheists who now possess or formerly possessed the power of speech.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by Jon, posted 06-16-2011 4:32 PM Jon has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
678910
11
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019