An Atheist By Any Other Name . . .

From the evidence provided so far, I conclude that God is a man made idea with no non-trivial relationship with reality. That is: God is a made up entity. I'm constantly reviewing the evidence as new information comes in. Nothing that Mr Flew has brought up, has caused me to change my conclusions. Why don't you let go of your arrogant disdain for anyone who does not believe in God? I'm not sure why you think it is a 'myth' that there might be variation in the strength of the conviction within the population of those that do not hold the belief 'a god exists'. Pascal hedged his bets. I, on the other hand, am betting 'no God' straight up. No bet hedging for me. I won't believe in some gods a little bit just in case my original bet turns out to not come in.I will provide some hedging to my conclusions, as I previously explained to you. You say that there is nothing wrong with hedging, so why should I quit that?

What evidence?

When you have to fluff up the credentials of a little known philosopher who was used as a proxy for a book while he was suffering from dementia you really are barking up the wrong tree. Let's take a look at the words put in Flew's mouth. We have seen these arguments before, and have dealt with them extensively in other threads. This is not evidence. These are empty assertions. If I said that the very existence of rainbows points to the existence of leprechauns would you be impressed? Probably not. Flew also claims that life is intelligently organized. This, too, is an empty assertion. It is his ghostwriters' opinion, probably inserted without Flew knowing. We have tons of threads dealign with this very topic. I would suggest you give them a perusal. That is a faith based belief, not a conclusion drawn from evidence. I thought you didn't care what we thought? When you see me taking communion then you can accuse me of hedging my bets.

The impression I had was that Flew did indeed switch over to a form of deism, though that does not obviate his having been exploited by Varghese and others.One main question is whether his switch was warranted. The reason given for that switch was his layman's determination (since, dammit, Jim!, he was a philosopher, not a scientist!) that there was no naturalistic explanation for the evolution of DNA. So his "solution" to this gap in our knowledge was goddidit, AKA the "God of the Gaps". Small wonder the IDists love him so much; their entire philosophy and theology are based on that false theology.No, Flew was not hitting on all cylinders when he arrived at that. Or as another Brit put it in a personal ad, he wasn't the sharpest sandwich at the picnic.As for shadow's complaints of non-believers' "distain" {sic} (should "disdain"; why can't anyone even spell anymore?) for believers solely because they believe in God, ... well, that's clearly projection. His mission, the same as the mission of all Christian proselytizers, is to attack and destroy the beliefs of everybody else in order to assimilate them into the "Body of Christ" * Since his mission and utmost wishes are to attack and destroy our beliefs, he assumes that that is what we wish to do to him. He's just projecting his designs on us upon us, turning us into an imaginary enemy.{ * FOOTNOTE:
I am of the Clan Donald, one of the two Scottish super-powers back when. The Loch Prado games (since discontinued) included a medieval Scottish encampment. The lady manning our clan tent, also a Star Trek fan, told us how she would every once in a while enter the encampment and pronounce, "We are the Clan Donald. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile!"The other Scottish super-power was the Campbells, far too well known for their alliances with the Saxons (English) and betrayal of the other clans. She also informed us that the Campbell clan tent is always located in the center, so that everybody could keep an eye on them.And as for that "Body of Christ" reference, Landru immediately comes to mind.
}

Did you just call me stupid?Give me a break, you know that I know what mutual exclusivity is. And I've already explained what I'm talking about so the whole 'a dog is not a cat' thing is just silly.If Last Thursdayism was true, we'd still have the exact same evidence that has led us to know that evolution occured... we'd just be wrong. They're not mutually exclusive.

Er - Yes they are. Apparently not. The Earth cannot be both millions of years old (thus allowing evolution to occur) and less than a week old simultaneously can it? I know (albeit tentatively) that the Earth is much much older than 7 days old.

Do you (albeit tentatively) know that the Earth is much much older than 7 days old?

​

Do you (albeit tentatively) know that the Earth wasn't created a mere 7 days ago?

​

If you are struggling to answer these questions without contradicting yourself don't blame me. Ask yourself what it is about your position that leads to such problems. Here is a hint.

​

The problem with your position is that you are abandoning simple logic in order to cling to an (apparently un-shakeable) premise (the same premise that is relevant to the god/atheism question).

​

You start from the premise that those things which are defined as being unknowable demand complete (non-trivial) agnosticism.

​

But then you also claim to know (albeit tentatively) that evidenced things like evolution are true. Combine your premise and your knowledge and you end up in logically nonsensical positions such as:

​

Knowing (albeit it tentatively) that evolution occurred whilst proclaiming complete ignorance as to whether something completely contradictory happened instead.

​

Knowing (albeit it tentatively) that the Earth is billions of years old whilst proclaiming to be completely ignorant as to whether or not it is less than a week old.

​

The problem is with your premise.

What the fuck is this shit? That's a complete fabrication, Straggler: That's not how this conversation has gone at all. Of course not. Do you not know what Last Thursdayism is?The universe is less than a week old but it just looks like it is millions of years old. Therefore, all the evidence we'd have would lead us to knowing that its old even though it is actually young.The whole point of it is that the knowledge of age from the evidence is not mutually exclusive with the actual age. Are you really saying that its illogical to have an agnostic position towards the unknowable? You're arguing against a tautology...And I don't equate "non-trivial" with "complete"... that's another fabrication by you. We've gotten to the point, again, where you're lying to me about what I, myself, think. No, its not. The premise is that in order to have knowledge that something doesn't exist, you need to have evidence that it doesn't. The problem is with your evidence that it doesn't.

I'd opt to stick with Atheist. I support it for a few reasons.1: It's accurate. The meaning is simple.
2: Slightly redundant to 1, it's simple and easily recognized.
3. It's not all supposed to be about comfort. If we called ourselves anything else, I fear that word would bear the same inherent feel.What it boils down to in my opinion is that the objection to atheism comes more from a lack of understanding of atheists, not the word itself.

I haven't read the entire thread but if atheist means, as you put it, "those that do not have a positive belief in any gods", then I am happy to be called an atheist. I'd also question the suggestion that the term has negative connotations. What's wrong about not having a positive belief in any gods?

CS do you (albeit it tentatively) know how old the Earth is?Can you tell us how old you (albeit tentatively) know the Earth to be?It's a simple question why can't you answer it without contradicting yourself? This is just a fuckwitted way of saying that evidence based knowledge is potentially fallible. As has been said many many times - Yes we all agree that knowledge is potentially fallible, nothing is certain and that our knowledge is thus tentative.However your stated position of knowing that evolution did occur whilst not knowing whether something completely different and mutually exclusive (i.e. Last Thursdayism) happened instead remains logically nonsensical. I'm saying that I know (albeit tentatively) that the Earth is billions of years old rather than less than a week old. No matter how supposedly "unknowable" Last Thursdayism may be.I'm also saying that the same principle of positive evidence based knowledge can be applied to conclude that gods/fairies/Leprechauns/etc. are products of human psychology rather than real entities no matter how "unknowable" these are defined to be.I'm saying that many such as yourself have convinced themselves that things defined to be impossible-to evidence and impossible to falsify are "unknowable". I'm saying that your demands for agnosticism towards such things beyond the trivial agnosticism of uncertainty are unjustified and lead to logical inconsistencies. The problem is with your super-glue like adherence to the idea that things which you consider "unknowable" demand more than just uncertainty. The problem is that you are even prepared to abandon logic in order to cling to this silly premise. I know (albeit tentatively) that my son is in the kitchen.My virtue of simple logic I know (albeit tentatively) that my son is NOT in his bedroom.But according to your boggle minded logic I cannot know this. I haven't falsified the notion that my son has suddenly developed some supernatural ability to be in two places at once. So to know he is NOT in his bedroom I must find positive evidence of his absence from his bedroom.Even though I know he is in the kitchen.Your position is ridiculous.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

sigh... more fabrications and repitition. I don't think there's anything I can type that i haven't already typed in this thread. Good day, sir.

I realize this is the Coffee House, and there is some leeway of discussion, but I think now is a good time to drop this subthread. Especially considering CS's last post. I'm really posting this in case anyone else feels like adding their thoughts on it.

CS do you (albeit tentatively) know how old the Earth is?Can you tell us how old you (albeit tentatively) know the Earth to be?Do you know (albeit tentatively) that the Earth is older than 1 week old?The fact that you can't answer simple direct questions without contradicting yourself should give you cause to ponder exactly what your position is regarding evidence, the knowledge that evidence can or cannot lead to and the logical consequences of this knowledge. But you obviously don't want to face the evident problems you have created for yourself.In conclusion....I know (albeit tentatively) that the Earth is billions of years old rather than less than a week old. No matter how supposedly "unknowable" Last Thursdayism may be.The same principle of positive evidence based knowledge can be applied to conclude that gods/fairies/Leprechauns/etc. are products of human psychology rather than real entities no matter how "unknowable" these are defined to be.Anyone who considers this some sort of unjustifiable form of "positive atheism" should be asking themselves what they know and what the logical consequences of that knowledge is. The results will not be comfortable.As for the explicit topic - I get why many think the term "atheist" is perfectly adequate. But I think there is a case for distinguishing between those who just passively don't believe and those (such as Dawkins, Hitchens etc.) who take a more active approach to demonstrating the flaws with theistic thinking through the application of science and reason.Edited by Straggler, : spelling

I've just seen this having replied.