Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
9 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The definition of atheism
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 16 of 101 (224337)
07-17-2005 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by mick
07-17-2005 2:53 PM


It's just the same as not holding a candle, and holding no candle.
It's more like the difference between having an empty hand and having no hand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by mick, posted 07-17-2005 2:53 PM mick has not replied

  
bobbins
Member (Idle past 3613 days)
Posts: 122
From: Manchester, England
Joined: 06-23-2005


Message 17 of 101 (224345)
07-18-2005 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by New Cat's Eye
07-17-2005 11:12 PM


Re: This atheist agrees.
The first part of your statement makes littles sense to me. I started from a point of no belief whatsoever. Surely evidence is required to create a/any belief. I was not born a theist and no evidence (including religious texts of dubious written origins, and pseudo-scientific placating of dogma) has convinced me to change. If I, as a child, had been bombarded with the koran,bible,torah (insert religious text here), I may have to then have proof of non-existance of (insert god here). I did not. I am a clean page, convince me.

Apophenia:seeing patterns or connections in random or meaningless data.
Pareidolia:vague or random stimulus being perceived (mistakenly) as recognisable.
Ramsey Theoryatterns may exist.
Whoops!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-17-2005 11:12 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-18-2005 12:33 AM bobbins has not replied
 Message 22 by PurpleYouko, posted 07-18-2005 12:42 PM bobbins has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 18 of 101 (224347)
07-18-2005 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by crashfrog
07-17-2005 11:33 PM


For instance we can know the Christian god doesn't exist because it would be impossible for that God to exist and not leave certain evidence
like what?
there's no predictive value to knowing that someone is a Catholic.
sure there is, here's what we believe.
quote:
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
But the existence of any gods described as "benevolent" and "omnipotent" can't logically be consistent with the world as we observe it
Even though this is the Argument from Incredulity, I somewhat agree with this statement. Perhaps god does exist and he is very good and very powerful, but humans have made an error in descibing him to each other. Or maybe we can't understand what all-powerful is as it it seems to defy logic.
Notice that benevolent is not in the creed, nor other beliefs that sometimes are but should not be assumed. These are extraneous beliefs that aren't neccessary, and they do very from person to person. But, these are the core beliefs, the base of the religion and can be assumed when a person says they're catholic.
This message has been edited by Catholic Scientist, 07-18-2005 12:08 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by crashfrog, posted 07-17-2005 11:33 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 07-18-2005 7:42 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 101 (224348)
07-18-2005 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by bobbins
07-18-2005 12:22 AM


I am a clean page, convince me.
I don't think I'm capable of that and the reply would be off topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by bobbins, posted 07-18-2005 12:22 AM bobbins has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 20 of 101 (224366)
07-18-2005 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by New Cat's Eye
07-15-2005 7:21 PM


Dictionaries do not define the meaning of words, they reflect them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-15-2005 7:21 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-18-2005 4:32 PM Dr Jack has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 21 of 101 (224374)
07-18-2005 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by New Cat's Eye
07-18-2005 12:27 AM


like what?
His constant intersession for good among his believers, for one.
sure there is, here's what we believe.
Those are just words, though. You, John Kerry, Andrew Sullivan, and the pontif's college of theologians all have different interpretations of that same statement of belief. And not everybody who says they're Catholic cleaves to those beliefs.
Even though this is the Argument from Incredulity
I'm sorry, but it isn't. It's a recognition that, if words have meaning, the words used to describe the Christian God describe a god that can't possibly exist in the world as we observe it.
But, these are the core beliefs, the base of the religion and can be assumed when a person says they're catholic.
Again, not always.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-18-2005 12:27 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-18-2005 2:13 PM crashfrog has replied

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 22 of 101 (224413)
07-18-2005 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by bobbins
07-18-2005 12:22 AM


Re: This atheist agrees.
Bobbins writes:
The first part of your statement makes littles sense to me. I started from a point of no belief whatsoever. Surely evidence is required to create a/any belief.
Emphasis added
I think this is where your logic goes wrong. Evidence should never give rise to a belief. Evidence gives rise to tentative conclusions which often lead to theories which outline predictions of future occurences.
Your example of the sun rising in the east is just such an evidence/conclusion/theory combination. You observe the sun rising in the east every day. You learn why it does so and you reach the tentative conclusion that it will most likely continue to do so every day. This is not a belief, at least not in my definition of the word "belief".
Personally I don't beleive there is a god because I have seen absolutely zero evidence to push me toward that conclusion. Likewise I don't beleive that there is no god. The evidence either way is non existent so no conclusion can be reached. No theory can be formulated and no prediction can be made.
If I were to say that I beleive there is no god then I would be guilty of reaching a conclusion without evidence to substantiate it. That is what beleif is to me and to many others. Beleif can only exist in the absence of proof or else it becomes a scientific conclusion based on established observations, complete with theories and predictions.
So in short, not believing in god is almost diametrically opposite to believing that there is no god. One is an absence of belief while the other is a positive affirmation of something.
PY

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by bobbins, posted 07-18-2005 12:22 AM bobbins has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-18-2005 2:02 PM PurpleYouko has replied
 Message 26 by 1.61803, posted 07-18-2005 3:42 PM PurpleYouko has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 101 (224423)
07-18-2005 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by PurpleYouko
07-18-2005 12:42 PM


Re: This atheist agrees.
Personally I don't beleive there is a god because I have seen absolutely zero evidence to push me toward that conclusion. Likewise I don't beleive that there is no god. The evidence either way is non existent so no conclusion can be reached. No theory can be formulated and no prediction can be made.
So do you call yourself an atheist?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by PurpleYouko, posted 07-18-2005 12:42 PM PurpleYouko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by PurpleYouko, posted 07-18-2005 2:36 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 101 (224426)
07-18-2005 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by crashfrog
07-18-2005 7:42 AM


His constant intersession for good among his believers
I don't understand what that sentance means.
if words have meaning, the words used to describe the Christian God describe a god that can't possibly exist in the world as we observe it.
The Argument From Personal Astonishment
Either god doesn't exist or words don't have meaning, OR we aren't observing the world in its entirety, or perhaprs we aren't observing it accurately. Just because you can't see how its possible doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, that is the argument from incredulity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by crashfrog, posted 07-18-2005 7:42 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by crashfrog, posted 07-18-2005 7:34 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 25 of 101 (224431)
07-18-2005 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by New Cat's Eye
07-18-2005 2:02 PM


Re: This atheist agrees.
So do you call yourself an atheist?
I don't really consider myself as anything other than a student of science.
I always thought of an atheist as having the same views as I do though so if the cap fits I guess i will have to wear it.
What is in a name anyway? I doubt that any 2 people anywhere ever share exactly the same viewpoint on anything so definitions like atheist have to be pretty broad.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-18-2005 2:02 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-18-2005 4:25 PM PurpleYouko has replied
 Message 78 by RAZD, posted 07-23-2005 2:56 PM PurpleYouko has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 26 of 101 (224436)
07-18-2005 3:42 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by PurpleYouko
07-18-2005 12:42 PM


Re: This atheist agrees.
Hi Mr. Purple Youko!!
purpleyouko writes:
Evidence should never give rise to a belief. Evidence gives rise to tentative conclusions which often lead to theories which outline predictions of future occurences.
Well how about this...take a anvil and hold if over your foot.
Now what evidence do you have that it will :
A: smash the shit out of it.
B. go the opposite direction into space when you release.
You can (BELIEVE) based on evidence or the lack thereof.
Most of what we take as common facts are based on belief.
The news reported by the media, the amount of calories printed on the candy bar wrapper.
Scientific methodology is wonderful in that it has replaced assumptions and speculation with reproducible experiments that can be used to infer facts.
BUT......How many peer reviewed /referenced papers do we really seek out. How many of these experiments do we personally conduct? How much of this data is actually processed by us personally?
We believe it. We believe the sources are reputable and the data valid. But at the end of the day we take them at they're word. JMHO.
By the way you sound like an agnostic to me. Also check out some of the writings of David Hume and the other empiricist.

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by PurpleYouko, posted 07-18-2005 12:42 PM PurpleYouko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by PurpleYouko, posted 07-20-2005 9:06 AM 1.61803 has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 101 (224439)
07-18-2005 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by PurpleYouko
07-18-2005 2:36 PM


I always thought of an atheist as having the same views as I do though so if the cap fits I guess i will have to wear it.
But the cap doesn't fit, according to the definition.
What is in a name anyway? I doubt that any 2 people anywhere ever share exactly the same viewpoint on anything so definitions like atheist have to be pretty broad.
Putting a label on yourself gives other people an idea of you beliefs. It doesn't mean that you have the exact same viewpoint as everyone else who is wearing that label. But, the fundamental beliefs of that label should be had. You shouldn't call yourself an atheist if you don't hold the belief that there is no god. Unless you're interested in changing the definition, or broadening it. Which is why I asked the questions in the OP.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by PurpleYouko, posted 07-18-2005 2:36 PM PurpleYouko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by PurpleYouko, posted 07-20-2005 9:14 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 101 (224442)
07-18-2005 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Dr Jack
07-18-2005 5:03 AM


Dictionaries do not define the meaning of words, they reflect them.
Yeah, and the language changes faster than the book does. I'm not advocating that the definitions of words should be immutable. I am interested in why the people who are ‘without a belief in god’ but not ‘with a belief in no god’ choose, in particular, the word atheist to describe themselves. I was thinking it might be for shock value, they pick it because of the negetive connotation. I dunno, maybe they don't have a better word, although I think agnostic would work better. I just don't get it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Dr Jack, posted 07-18-2005 5:03 AM Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by mark24, posted 07-18-2005 4:36 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 79 by RAZD, posted 07-23-2005 2:59 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 29 of 101 (224444)
07-18-2005 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by New Cat's Eye
07-18-2005 4:32 PM


CS,
I am interested in why the people who are ‘without a belief in god’ but not ‘with a belief in no god’ choose, in particular, the word atheist to describe themselves.
I describe myself as an agnostic atheist, as opposed to a gnostic one.
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-18-2005 4:32 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 30 of 101 (224489)
07-18-2005 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by New Cat's Eye
07-18-2005 2:13 PM


I don't understand what that sentance means.
Well, grab a dictionary.
Just because you can't see how its possible doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, that is the argument from incredulity.
No, you still don't understand. It's not that I don't see how it could be possible. It's that I do see that it's impossible, thus, this is not an argument from incredulity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-18-2005 2:13 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-18-2005 8:06 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024