Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,249 Year: 5,506/9,624 Month: 531/323 Week: 28/143 Day: 1/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Problems with being an Atheist (or Evolutionist)
Damouse
Member (Idle past 5022 days)
Posts: 215
From: Brookfield, Wisconsin
Joined: 12-18-2005


Message 251 of 276 (587785)
10-20-2010 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by Rrhain
10-15-2010 1:55 AM


quote:
But that doesn't deny the fact that you can prove a negative. The problem when it comes to "god," from what I have seen, is that there is no good definition of what "god" is. But all that means is that just as it is difficult to prove the non-existence of something that cannot be defined, it is at least as hard to justify the claim of its existence.
You are twisting examples to sure your own point. Math is one of the only hard sciences you can prove anything in, and so it is an exception to the "cant prove a negative."
As it pertains to the discussion, you cannot prove the lack of existence of am omnipotent entity. Done. There is no logical, philosophical way to do it. If you choose to argue against this, you're not of a different opinion, you are WRONG.
quote:
Atheism is the lack of belief.
How can the lack of belief be a "belief"?
Because you believe there is no omnipotent entity. By not having a belief in a god of any flavor, you form a belief pertaining to a lack of god.
You are arguing silly semantics. An atheist holds to the belief that theistic conclusions are wrong, and therefor holds to the belief that there is no god. The definition does not detail this, but this must follow from the definition.
You cannot have an opinion about something and not have a belief about it.
ABE: from dictionary.com:
quote:
atheism
   /ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled[ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
—noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Edited by Damouse, : No reason given.
Edited by Damouse, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by Rrhain, posted 10-15-2010 1:55 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by Panda, posted 10-20-2010 8:06 PM Damouse has replied
 Message 270 by Rrhain, posted 11-02-2010 12:30 AM Damouse has not replied

  
Damouse
Member (Idle past 5022 days)
Posts: 215
From: Brookfield, Wisconsin
Joined: 12-18-2005


Message 253 of 276 (587793)
10-20-2010 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by Panda
10-20-2010 8:06 PM


quote:
In its narrowest sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.
I take "in its narrowest sense" to mean at its most fundamental. Taking the position that there are no deities is a belief.
I again state that this a silly conversation about semantics. An atheist knows what he or she believes, or what he or she does not believe in. What is the point of picking straws? Its a worthless point to quibble over in the grand argument.
-I believe there is no god.
-I no not believe in god
-I do not believe in theistic conclusions
-I believe only the physical world exists
These are all ideas an atheist may have, and none of them are exclusive, even thought the first two express disbelief and belief about the same topic in equal measures.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by Panda, posted 10-20-2010 8:06 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by Panda, posted 10-20-2010 9:12 PM Damouse has replied
 Message 257 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-21-2010 1:44 AM Damouse has replied
 Message 266 by Theodoric, posted 10-22-2010 10:34 AM Damouse has replied

  
Damouse
Member (Idle past 5022 days)
Posts: 215
From: Brookfield, Wisconsin
Joined: 12-18-2005


Message 255 of 276 (587799)
10-20-2010 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Panda
10-20-2010 9:12 PM


...I guess that you didn't understand it.
It very clearly explains the position of atheism not being a belief.
e.g. As an atheist: gods do not feature amongst the things I believe.
I look at my beliefs, and I see nothing relating to gods.
You're right. I missed how that related to this conversation.
I also understand what you mean. I suppose me being what the video refers to as a "strong" atheist led me to gloss that part over.
If the point is not important to you, then stop argueing it.
I, personally, feel the distinction is important enough to require a response to claims of the contrary.
The point is important to me because i feel that any atheist challenged based on their label is something of a misdirection. You may have an utter lack of belief in any gods, and i may have a belief that no gods exist. If a theist were to challenge either of us based on that, our conversation with him/her would have no impact on our belief or our current religious debate. It is, again, a semantic argument.
That the video refers to people that believe there are no gods as "strong" atheists is a telling point. If the word atheist had no connotations that related to believing there is no god(s), then a strong atheist would simply be an atheist that decidedly has no belief, not one with a counter belief. Instead, a strong atheist has a decidedly pronounced rejection of gods. This is part of the word, as evidenced by the conflicting definitions.
Being an atheist does not require a belief in a lack of gods - it requires a lack of belief in gods.
I agree. But having a belief in lack of gods does not disqualify you from being an atheist. Some would call it strong atheism, as the video, or fundamental atheism, as the source you referenced, or may even list it as the first quality for atheism, as the dictionary reference i posted.
Edited by Damouse, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Panda, posted 10-20-2010 9:12 PM Panda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-21-2010 1:42 AM Damouse has not replied

  
Damouse
Member (Idle past 5022 days)
Posts: 215
From: Brookfield, Wisconsin
Joined: 12-18-2005


Message 258 of 276 (587824)
10-21-2010 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by Dr Adequate
10-21-2010 1:44 AM


Is the existence of the phrase green hat a "telling point" on the side of the argument that all hats are green?
It proves that a hat can be green.
In the conversation at hand, it would show that one can be an atheist and have a specific belief that there is no god, gods, or deities.
In which you are peculiarly eager to participate.
Yes, i am. If you were to try to convince me i was a white giraffe, i would tell you you are being silly. That wouldnt prevent me from engaging in debate about my anthropomorphic qualities.
Im not trying to be radical or abrasive, and i feel like my comments are being received as such. Apologies if they came out like that.
My position is simple. I know what i believe. I understand my own philosophy. I believe atheists know what they think, and i believe they are confident and justified in whatever brand of vodka they adhere to. This particular train of conversation began when a theist declared what it meant to be an atheist, and that's the part i find silly.
Edited by Damouse, : Speeling is hard.

This statement is false.
Tell the blunt, honest truth in the starkest, darkest way. And what will be, will be. What will be, should be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-21-2010 1:44 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-21-2010 2:35 AM Damouse has replied
 Message 265 by Panda, posted 10-21-2010 8:06 AM Damouse has not replied

  
Damouse
Member (Idle past 5022 days)
Posts: 215
From: Brookfield, Wisconsin
Joined: 12-18-2005


Message 260 of 276 (587833)
10-21-2010 2:44 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by Dr Adequate
10-21-2010 2:35 AM


There is a difference.
If people agree with your stated reasoning as to why im wrong, i shan't lose any sleep over it. You're either being willfully obstinate or just misreading what im saying.
...justified in whatever brand of vodka they adhere to.
From message 258, where i said that each atheist is entitled to their own subtleties and (non-exclusively) the label atheist.
In message 255, i admitted that i missed the subtlety in the video posted by hooah differentiating between the mentioned flavors of atheism, as posted in that video.
There is a difference when you include the modifier out front, yes. When you say the word "atheist" and nothing else, as i assume most people are inclined to do when asked, there is a bit of discrepancy.
Only relatively recently in this thread have the modifier words been used with the word atheist. The majority of the usage was just the one word label.
Im assuming an atheist to introduce himself as just an atheist solely based on my personal experience and a touch of social etiquette. By no means do i think that a rule.
That discrepancy, and the root of this argument, is a semantic difference.
Edited by Damouse, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-21-2010 2:35 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-21-2010 3:17 AM Damouse has replied
 Message 263 by Nij, posted 10-21-2010 3:40 AM Damouse has replied

  
Damouse
Member (Idle past 5022 days)
Posts: 215
From: Brookfield, Wisconsin
Joined: 12-18-2005


Message 262 of 276 (587850)
10-21-2010 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by Dr Adequate
10-21-2010 3:17 AM


Well, yes they do. But if a "weak" atheist introduces himself as an atheist and then a theist starts arguing with him as though he was a "strong" atheist, the cry of "STRAWMAN" will be so loud that you'll be able to hear it in the next country.
Ah, well. We're all agnostics anyway.
There's not much content in atheism, but what there is we can manage to disagree about. How fortunate it is that we do not burn one another at the stake.
I think were at the point of agreement. Arguing about the name with atheists doesn't really raise my blood pressure, its more when theists tell atheists what the atheist believes that my hackles rise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-21-2010 3:17 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Damouse
Member (Idle past 5022 days)
Posts: 215
From: Brookfield, Wisconsin
Joined: 12-18-2005


Message 264 of 276 (587860)
10-21-2010 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by Nij
10-21-2010 3:40 AM


You have effectively been telling people the opposite: from what I can see, you have stated that all atheists are strong atheists or that equivalently atheism requires positive belief in the nonexistence of gods. For example:
This is what i posted, what you quoted, which i am reposting for the sake of clarity.
- I believe there is no god.
- I do not believe in god.
These are all ideas an atheist may have, and none of them are exclusive, even thought the first two express disbelief and belief about the same topic in equal measures.
To which you said "Not so." And then moved to say that i am ignoring the neutral.
I think you may have misread me, or i misspoke. The way this thread is going, it's likely the latter.
It is possible for multiple atheists to hold the following two beliefs to be true at the same time and still be an atheist:
-I BELIEVE there is NO god
-Among my beliefs there lie no beliefs about god.
Thats what i said in the comment you quoted. By saying that the two premises are not exclusive to atheism and can both or either be held valid at the same time, i am clearly acknowledging the middle ground.
The quotes you posted before that was before i realized my error. Everything after that, including the clarified point above, was along a different line of thought.
Edited by Damouse, : No reason given.
Edited by Damouse, : No reason given.
Edited by Damouse, : No reason given.
Edited by Damouse, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Nij, posted 10-21-2010 3:40 AM Nij has not replied

  
Damouse
Member (Idle past 5022 days)
Posts: 215
From: Brookfield, Wisconsin
Joined: 12-18-2005


Message 267 of 276 (588164)
10-22-2010 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Theodoric
10-22-2010 10:34 AM


Re: As an atheist let me say this
Wrong. I have no belief there is a god. I do NOT believe there is no god. In order to have that belief there have to be some reason for me to even consider whether there is a god. There is no reason for me to consider that premise.
Are you literate? The section quoted is from possible beliefs an atheist may have, you and responded with "wrong." I have this particular belief, and im an atheist. What is "wrong?" You treat every quote as an attack against you.
You need to define this more if you expect people to agree or disagree. This seems to me to be a fundy set up here more than anything else.
No, i dont. What i posted was a belief of mine; i didn't hold it up to be argued. I dont have to defend it and i dont have to phrase it nicely for you, its a statement of fact about me.
A fundy setup? Yet another reason to believe you haven't bothered to read the last page of the thread; i openly state i am atheist.
You have shown that you have no idea of the ideas an atheist may have. Maybe you should quit telling us what we think and listen to what we tell you we think.
Maybe you should learn to read the whole thread. Dont be an ass.
If you could read the whole thread, you'd see that i am an atheist and have every right to talk about the ideas an atheist may have. You have no more right to supposedly tell me what i think than i have to tell you what you think, according to your logic.
Secondly, you would be able to see that i was wrong and was summarily informed about the nuances of strong v. weak atheism, a distinction i had not been making previously.
This is the reason i debate on these forums in the first place; to increase my own understanding and knowledge about what i believe. That should be the reason everyone should argue, imo. You seem to have made this post just to be snarky, with no contribution to the general conversation at all. You dont even seem to have read the posts following the one you quoted because if you had, you would have seen me admit being wrong and understanding the middle ground.

This statement is false.
Tell the blunt, honest truth in the starkest, darkest way. And what will be, will be. What will be, should be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Theodoric, posted 10-22-2010 10:34 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Theodoric, posted 10-22-2010 4:49 PM Damouse has replied

  
Damouse
Member (Idle past 5022 days)
Posts: 215
From: Brookfield, Wisconsin
Joined: 12-18-2005


Message 269 of 276 (588175)
10-22-2010 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by Theodoric
10-22-2010 4:49 PM


Re: As an atheist let me say this
Why bother posting something if you are not willing to explain what it means?
Because it wasn't relevant to the argument. It was me identifying with the atheists as being on the same side, arguing about semantics; not being on the opposite side, attempting to fill someone else's mouth with my ideas.
You make a comment that this is an argument about semantics. I am telling you that it is not an argument about semantics. Maybe to you it is, but to many atheists(me and others) it is not an argument about semantics. My post was an attempt to show that you are incorrect in stating it is a semantic point.
I think we reached agreement that the issue with introducing yourself as an "atheist" and then arguing about what the means is a semantic argument. How can it not be? The difference in what that means is an argument about what the word means.
The alternative is introducing yourself as a "strong" or "weak" atheist to further detail what exactly it is that you believe.
Sounds very much like a fundy setup. As you will not define what this statement means all it is is word salad. As I said before, it seems a waste of pixels if you are going to make a statement and then refuse to explain what it means.
At best its an out of context, irrelevant distraction.
At worse, its off topic and detrimental to the thread.
So again, why does it matter? Its a statement of belief of mine. I fail to see how you cant understand it.
I disagree with your interpretation of atheism so I am an ass? If you are not willing to defend your comments don't post.
You're an ass because you came after me for the sake of drawing blood, after the argument was mostly settled.
Its like having negotiations, agreeing on a decision, and then inviting a third party to come and get back into it. It seemed unnecessary after i had already admitted my ignorant comments.

This statement is false.
Tell the blunt, honest truth in the starkest, darkest way. And what will be, will be. What will be, should be.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Theodoric, posted 10-22-2010 4:49 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024