Originally posted by DeepThought to Grampy BobbyThe way Grampy Bobby has used the notion of "authority" here over the years has been to cite a "pastor" he knows, who nobody else here has met (as far as I know), and who does not post here on this forum and is therefore unavailable to argue his corner. Grampy Bobby uses this as a device to dodge questions about the ideas and beliefs that he insists are unassailably "true". The word "authority", is used in this instance, therefore, to evade any scrutiny one's ideas might deserve on a debate and discussion forum and avoid sincere engagement with those who might disagree with them.
What do you mean by authority? Someone who gives definitive answers to questions or who tells me what is right and wrong? I'm not sure I'm in need of either of those.
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI think it unwise to 'regard' either word (atheist or agnostic) as having a specific meaning. It is a fact that there are two distinct meanings in common usage. So it is best to use context to understand what someone means when they use either word. I have my own preferred usage (the opposite of yours for both words), but as long as you are clear when you use them in your way what definition you are using then I cannot fault you. Just be sure to remember that when I use them I am most likely using them in my way.
The definition given'll do. I tend to regard atheist as meaning "one who believes there is no god", rather than "one who does not believe there is a god." which I'd class as agnostic. The former is a stronger statement not implied by the latter. I still regard myself as agnostic and agnostic meaning something different from atheist. The technical def ...[text shortened]... stic includes the sense I'm using it in. I think it's possible to be both agnostic and atheist.
What do you mean by authority? Someone who gives definitive answers to questions or who tells me what is right and wrong? I'm not sure I'm in need of either of those.
From what he and other like-minded theists have said in the past, he believes it is necessary to have some people (or sources) that you trust completely without verifying what they tell you. These people or sources he calls authorities.
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Originally posted by knightmangler
"How can one hate something that has never existed."
The author of the quoted text simply raises the question: "Do atheists hate the God they don't believe in?" I for one agree with the obvious answer to your own question: "How can one hate something that has never existed.", the answer to which is obviously ...[text shortened]... f my eventual rendezvous with physical death would probably weigh heavily on my mind at times. .
I for one agree with the obvious answer to your own question: "How can one hate something that has never existed.", the answer to which is obviously "one" can't because there is no focal point or target.
Right. It’s more or less a conceptual truth that atheists do not take it that ‘God’ has an actual referent. So, then, you should see clearly that Matt Slick is talking nonsense when he tries to imply that instances where atheists “accuse [God] of wrong doing” are instances that serve to express an attitude of hatred on the part these atheists toward God. Pretty much the balance of his commentary quoted in your opening post is wholesale nonsense as well.
However, there still seems to be confusion regarding how such instances do function and what they do serve to express. I thought this would have been rather obvious, but I guess it’s useful to go through this for the edification of the Matt Slicks out there. Suppose some atheist remarks that God is a moral monster, or some such. Obviously, contrary to the absurd Slickian interpretation, this should not be interpreted as this atheist’s taking it that ‘God’ has a referent and attributing the property of being morally monstrous unto it. Rather, I would suggest we look to contextual interpretations, and I think it will be clear that this atheist is attempting to draw attention to what he or she views as inconsistencies within some particular set of theistic commitments and narratives. For example, it is a glaring inconsistency for a theist to hold on one hand that God is the epitome of things like love and justice; and on the other hand for this theist’s view of divine accounts to depict God as sanctioning genocide, infanticide, and the like. This sort of inconsistency problem is usually most acute for a theist who takes some hyper-literal stance on putatively divine accounts that have no business being taken literally in the first place. The atheist remark then acts sort of like a calling of one’s bluff: it’s basically calling for the theist to defend his commitments in the face of apparent inconsistency. So, this sort of remark actually represents an argumentative opportunity for the theist. Alas, it’s usually not interpreted as such by the Matt Slicks out there for a couple of reasons. For one, the Matt Slicks out there are not so bright, apparently, when it comes to interpreting such things. For two, it’s often not offered up as a genuine debate opportunity. After all, one could just make a direct, explicit actual argument against the theist’s inconsistent position, and that would be the obvious thing to do. So, these remarks are probably more reserved for instances where the theist hasn’t demonstrated any real capacity or interest for debating the topic; and/or the theistic position is so obviously absurd that defending it would be an absurdist exercise. So, in those cases I would suggest you interpret “Your god is a monster!” as proxy for the claim that your God-narratives are in some respect patently absurd, period. If the atheist is somewhat impassioned while saying it, that’s probably some shock at the way in which the theist is trying to contort reason.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by LemonJelloRight. It’s more or less a conceptual truth that atheists do not take it that ‘God’ has an actual referent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
No actual referent ?
It's a horrible idea that God, this paragon of wisdom and knowledge, power, couldn't think of a better way to forgive us our sins than to come down to Earth in his alter ego as his son and have himself hideously tortured and executed so that he could forgive himself.
Richard Dawkins
Most people in the Western world have no problem knowing who the referent is that Atheists Dawkins is talking about. He's talking about Jesus Christ. He's talking about the referent Jesus referred to when He continually spoke of His Father.
So, then, you should see clearly that Matt Slick is talking nonsense when he tries to imply that instances where atheists “accuse [God] of wrong doing” are instances that serve to express an attitude of hatred on the part these atheists toward God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No expression of hatred on the part of Dawkins here toward the referent of his accusation ?
“The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” Richard Dawkins
One thing is for sure. Dawkins has a Thesaurus.
No referent and no hatred ?
Rather, I would suggest we look to contextual interpretations, and I think it will be clear that this atheist is attempting to draw attention to what he or she views as inconsistencies within some particular set of theistic commitments and narratives.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So there is a referent and Dawkins expresses contempt for the referent.
This sort of inconsistency problem is usually most acute for a theist who takes some hyper-literal stance on putatively divine accounts that have no business being taken literally in the first place. The atheist remark then acts sort of like a calling of one’s bluff: it’s basically calling for the theist to defend his commitments in the face of apparent inconsistency.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I never expected that everything I would fully understand and have no problem with.
I had a dog we had for years and years. One night my parents, without seeking the children's permission, had him put to sleep. His hearing was gone from old age or constantly heard something to bark at. As a result he barked through the night.
I was upset. But I grasped a little of the reason for saying goodbye to the old old dog.
Is the analogy perfect? Nope. It would be easy to find fault with it. But I am glad the frankness of the Bible includes difficult instances.
Critics like Dawkins exploit some of these accounts.
Of course he has to steal from a Christian world view to have a basis for condemning the actions as morally bad. On a true Atheist / Naturalist world view why is one chemical reaction "bad" anyway ?
If the atheist is somewhat impassioned while saying it, that’s probably some shock at the way in which the theist is trying to contort reason.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure. He's mad with God. He's mad with believers in God too.
Talking about "patently absurd" ... even if the Atheist announces that he lacks belief in God, both that lack and his contempt for certain matters pertaining to God reveal a referent.
The Argument From Reason
Originally posted by LemonJelloI agree with what you have written except for your explanation of the putative atheist's anger. I think there are two sources, one is frustration at the the bone headed way some advocates of any position will argue their case (see the Debates forum for clear examples in every thread). I think that cause is easily understood. The other and more interesting potential source of the impassioned nature of the discourse is the clash of world-views. Some people become intensely emotional when confronted with paradigms which clash with their own.I for one agree with the obvious answer to your own question: "How can one hate something that has never existed.", the answer to which is obviously "one" can't because there is no focal point or target.
Right. It’s more or less a conceptual truth that atheists do not take it that ‘God’ has an actual referent. So, then, you should see ...[text shortened]... aying it, that’s probably some shock at the way in which the theist is trying to contort reason.
06 Nov 15
Originally posted by sonshipI think LJ was reserving the word referent for things that exist in the world view of the listener, in this case athesists. So while God or Jesus may well be a referent for you, being a Christian, they are not for atheists as an atheist's world view has no room for divine entities.
[b] Right. It’s more or less a conceptual truth that atheists do not take it that ‘God’ has an actual referent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
No actual referent ?
[quote] It's a horrible idea that God, this paragon of wisdom and knowledge, power, couldn't think of a better way to forgive us our sins tha ...[text shortened]... a referent.
The Argument From Reason
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKX-QtEo2fI[/b]
Originally posted by sonshipBy "actual referent" I mean an existent thing to which the term refers. So, in our context, to take it that 'God' has an actual referent is to take it that there exists some actual thing that this term picks out. But by definition, that's indicative of a theist, not an atheist.
[b] Right. It’s more or less a conceptual truth that atheists do not take it that ‘God’ has an actual referent.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
No actual referent ?
[quote] It's a horrible idea that God, this paragon of wisdom and knowledge, power, couldn't think of a better way to forgive us our sins tha ...[text shortened]... a referent.
The Argument From Reason
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKX-QtEo2fI[/b]
The examples you raise from Dawkins are apt. No, Dawkins is not here displaying hatred or contempt for God. He's not presenting any actual argument, either. Rather, what he is doing is, in a sense, intellectually belittling specific theistic narratives -- narratives that in his view are absurd, pervert basic notions, unworthy of surviving even cursory scrutiny, etc. There are perhaps many things to accuse Dawkins of here: to wit, he is not putting forth any actual argument; it would be debatable whether or not he is faithfully redescribing the theistic narratives against which he inveighs or whether or not he is presenting caricatures of them; it is dubious that this approach is conducive toward constructive dialogue/debate; etc. But it would be nonsense -- of the Slickian sort, and that is the point here -- to accuse him of harboring hate toward God. If he harbors hate here, I guess it would be toward specific views that he sees as intellectually vapid, pernicious, perverse, or whatever.
What is the purpose of your youtube link?
07 Nov 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtTrue, I agree.
I agree with what you have written except for your explanation of the putative atheist's anger. I think there are two sources, one is frustration at the the bone headed way some advocates of any position will argue their case (see the Debates forum for clear examples in every thread). I think think that cause is easily understood. The other and ...[text shortened]... ome people become intensely emotional when confronted with paradigms which clash with their own.
Originally posted by sonshipI'm sure that Dawkins would be equally scathing of a god who
[It's a horrible idea that God, this paragon of wisdom and knowledge, power, couldn't think of a better way to forgive us our sins than to come down to Earth in his alter ego as his son and have himself hideously tortured and executed so that he could forgive himself.
Richard Dawkins
Most people in the Western world have no problem ...[text shortened]... He's talking about the referent Jesus referred to when He continually spoke of His Father.
disguised himself as a swan and raped beautiful mortal women.
(Zeus I think)
It in no way indicates that Zeus or your Abrahamic god exists.
The "hatred" - if there is any - is towards the religion
and the concepts which that religion promulgates.
edit: ... and not towards any mythical being.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeYes, well, and yet...
I don't hate God, but the whole wasp thing has caused a degree of vexation.
*I know it has been said already, but i really can't bring myself to hate something i don't believe in, Indeed, there are very few things i hate that i 'do' believe in.
(And I think you weren't here yet when this happened...)
And yet when I started a thread entitled "Why do Atheists Reject God?" only one atheist could bring himself to explain exactly WHY he had rejected God. I got a chorus of "How can I reject something I do not believe in?" (which is pure twaddle, because yes, I DO reject the Flying Spaghetti Monster BECAUSE he doesn't exist) and I even got a few "I haven't rejected God." But I only got ONE "I reject God because...."
Atheists LOVE to repeatedly tell anyone who will listen WHAT they do (and in other words, like non-belief ), they just can't tell you WHY they do it, even to the point of denying they do it at all. Very strange behavior, that.
You just have to choose the correct action verb here. And no, hate isn't it.
Originally posted by twhiteheadTell this to googlefudge.
I think it unwise to 'regard' either word (atheist or agnostic) as having a specific meaning. It is a fact that there are two distinct meanings in common usage.
He's repeatedly said, and I paraphrase here, that "atheist is atheist is atheist is atheist is atheist". Sure, he accedes that atheism can be strong or weak, but he never does "water down" the word atheist. To him, it means what it means and it will never mean anything else. In fact, I'm almost sure he would take exception to what you're saying here.
07 Nov 15
Originally posted by SuzianneI suppose, but you have to bear in mind the different perspectives theists and atheists have. An atheist rejecting God is someone rejecting a theory, and may have felt quite dispassionate in doing so. A theist looking on sees what they regard as a real person being rejected and so may infer an emotional process where there isn't one.
Yes, well, and yet...
(And I think you weren't here yet when this happened...)
And yet when I started a thread entitled "Why do Atheists Reject God?" only one atheist could bring himself to explain exactly WHY he had rejected God. I got a chorus of "How can I reject something I do not believe in?" (which is pure twaddle, because yes, I DO reject the ...[text shortened]... r, that.
You just have to choose the correct action verb here. And no, hate isn't it.
Originally posted by SuzianneHave you rejected his offer to give you pasta for the rest of your days?
(which is pure twaddle, because yes, I DO reject the Flying Spaghetti Monster BECAUSE he doesn't exist)
What I think is 'pure twaddle' is your pretence at misunderstanding what people actually said in that thread.
Atheists LOVE to repeatedly tell anyone who will listen WHAT they do (and in other words, like non-belief ), they just can't tell you WHY they do it, even to the point of denying they do it at all. Very strange behavior, that.
The strange behaviour is when someone demands an explanation as to why someone does something that they do not in fact do and when their error is pointed out they cry 'now you are even denying that you do it!'.
I can tell you why I do everything I do. I cannot tell you why I do things you imagine I do but that I in fact do not do.
I do not reject God. I reject the concept of God, I reject the claim that God exists. To claim that I reject God demonstrates your poor grasp of the English language and not a case of me denying doing something I in fact do.