Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Because atheism is a rejection of the prevailing God, the divine in question.
According to the tenets of your beliefs, you have no plane on which to relate to God on the basis of your complete disbelief in His existence; in your doctrinal statements, He is a non-existent entity.
This is a non-negotiable aspect of atheism: God cannot 'maybe exist' or 'pos ...[text shortened]... hers' beliefs: long-term insistence of emphatic 'no' followed with a weak-assed 'well, maybe...'
This is a non-negotiable aspect of atheism: God cannot 'maybe exist' or 'possibly exist,' as you've rejected the notion of Him altogether.
What on earth are you talking about? Even a strong version of atheism would only be committed to the idea that God does not exist, not that there is no possibility that God exists. Seriously, man, read up on stuff before declaiming on it....
Originally posted by FreakyKBHrwingett has spent an enormous amount of time explaining why your definitions of atheism and agnosticism are wrong, but yet you continue with them. An agnostic is someone who has no opinion on a topic. By your inane definitions, only people that answered 1.0 or 7.0 would not be agnostics. Atheism wouldn't even be a useful term by your definition, because it would include virtually no one.
Because atheism is a rejection of the prevailing God, the divine in question.
According to the tenets of your beliefs, you have no plane on which to relate to God on the basis of your complete disbelief in His existence; in your doctrinal statements, He is a non-existent entity.
This is a non-negotiable aspect of atheism: God cannot 'maybe exist' or 'pos ...[text shortened]... hers' beliefs: long-term insistence of emphatic 'no' followed with a weak-assed 'well, maybe...'
Again, this is merely a dishonest attempt to equate believers with non-believers, and pretend that they are equivalent positions, which they are clearly not, because only believers are making an assertion.
21 Jan 14
Originally posted by PatNovakYour assertion that rwingett "has spent an enormous amount of time explaining why your definitions of atheism and agnosticism are wrong" is flat out silly.
rwingett has spent an enormous amount of time explaining why your definitions of atheism and agnosticism are wrong, but yet you continue with them. An agnostic is someone who has no opinion on a topic. By your inane definitions, only people that answered 1.0 or 7.0 would not be agnostics. Atheism wouldn't even be a useful term by your definition, because it ...[text shortened]... quivalent positions, which they are clearly not, because only believers are making an assertion.
It's only wrong, because he did indeed try to dispel the common usage of the term atheism, but agnosticism didn't enter the conversation.
However, it's still silly because he was shown to be wrong despite the enormity of time spent.
When questioned about the origin of the word and its relation to theism, he was wrong. Googlefudge (who the question was originally directed toward) did not join in the discussion.
For an avowed atheist to be operating under wrong assumptions about their own beliefs is--- to put it mildly--- the height of absurdity. I think a person can be forgiven for a lack of comprehensive understanding of a position they don't hold, but to be uninformed with respect to their own?
What made the issue so glaring, however, is the atheists' insistence on how the theists were off-base, when (as the matter was more clearly explored) the opposite was true: atheists don't even know what an atheist is.
It took a theist to explain what an atheist is.
That's funny, no matter who you are.
And now you further embarrass the rank and file by declaring...
An agnostic is someone who has no opinion on a topic.
I'm going to italicize that crap just to do it the justice it so rightfully deserves.
An agnostic is someone who has no opinion on a topic.
God, how I wish we could swear on here: the horse excrement is that rich and potent.
I couldn't make a post more abundant with contradiction if I wanted to.
Here's some advice.
Wikipedia stuff before you post it.
21 Jan 14
Originally posted by LemonJelloI guess my mind gets a little numb when trying to discern the distinction between the idea that God does not exist and the belief that the existence of God is not possible.This is a non-negotiable aspect of atheism: God cannot 'maybe exist' or 'possibly exist,' as you've rejected the notion of Him altogether.
What on earth are you talking about? Even a strong version of atheism would only be committed to the idea that God does not exist, not that there is no possibility that God exists. Seriously, man, read up on stuff before declaiming on it....
By all means, clarify the position for me!
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo no, no and yet more no.
Because atheism is a rejection of the prevailing God, the divine in question.
According to the tenets of your beliefs, you have no plane on which to relate to God on the basis of your complete disbelief in His existence; in your doctrinal statements, He is a non-existent entity.
This is a non-negotiable aspect of atheism: God cannot 'maybe exist' or 'pos ...[text shortened]... hers' beliefs: long-term insistence of emphatic 'no' followed with a weak-assed 'well, maybe...'
Go read my bio ffs.
Agnosticism/gnosticism is a question about KNOWLEDGE.
Atheism/theism is a question about belief.
You have to believe something as a prerequisite for knowledge, but belief
in and of itself is not knowledge.
You can believe something but not know something [or claim to know something]
Atheism, as defined repeatedly BY ATHEISTS, as in US, as in ME, is most broadly
the LACK of a belief that gods exist.
That is what WE mean when WE call OURSELVES atheists.
We lack a belief in gods.
I could give a flying bonobo, what you mean by the word, you KNOW that is what
we mean by it.
Thus an atheist could be someone who simply has no beliefs on the existence of
gods [and maybe hasn't even thought of the concept of gods].
Agnostic weak atheist.
They could be a person who believes that they don't exist, [with varying degrees of
belief] but isn't prepared to claim that they know that gods don't exist.
Agnostic strong atheist.
And they could be a person who claims to know they gods don't exist, but still
doesn't claim that knowledge with 100% absolute certainty.
Gnostic strong atheist.
And you could have a person who claims to know with epistemic certainty that
gods don't exist.
Epistemic strong atheist.
But all of those positions are ..... atheist.
And we say that this is our position [or as we are atheists and only absolutely agree on
one thing as a group, that we lack a belief in gods] over and over and over again on these
forums in very clear and unmistakeable terms it is only reasonable for us to expect someone
who has been here for as long as Suzianne or yourself to understand that this is our position.
What you are doing is presenting yet another straw man of our position or are trying to tell
us what we as atheists should believe. You don't get to do that.
Being an atheist does not require you to be an epistemic strong atheist who is absolutely 100%
certain that gods don't exist.
That is a theistic strawman created specifically to discredit atheists and bares no resemblance to
reality. Your post is at best a pack of ignorant lies... you don't want to know what it is at worst.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOK, according to Wikipedia: "A person calling oneself 'agnostic' is literally stating that he or she has no opinion on the existence of God, as there is no definitive evidence for or against. "
And now you further embarrass the rank and file by declaring...
An agnostic is someone who has no opinion on a topic.
I'm going to italicize that crap just to do it the justice it so rightfully deserves.
An agnostic is someone who has no opinion on a topic.
God, how I wish we could swear on here: the horse excrement is that rich and potent. ...[text shortened]... bundant with contradiction if I wanted to.
Here's some advice.
Wikipedia stuff before you post it.
This definition matches my definition, not yours. You are intentionally trying to misdefine words to equate belief with nonbelief to make your position sound better. It is dishonest and unworthy of people engaging in legitimate debate.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
21 Jan 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI don't believe that unicorns exist on Earth. [or have ever existed on this Earth]
I guess my mind gets a little numb when trying to discern the distinction between the idea that God does not exist and the belief that the existence of God is not possible.
By all means, clarify the position for me!
That is I don't believe that there is a breed of exceptionally fast albino white
horses with a Narwhal tusk sticking out their heads living anywhere on the Earth.
[ignoring the possibility of them existing elsewhere in the universe for the moment]
However, such a creature does not violate any laws of physics or biology, and
thus could possibly exist in this universe, and even on this Earth.
So while I don't believe unicorns do or have ever existed, I don't believe them to
be impossible. And if at some future date we found reliably convincing evidence
that yes, a breed of horse with a horn did once exist it would surprise me, but
not shatter my world view.
Now when it comes to god, god* does violate the known laws of physics, which makes
that god vastly less likely. However while the laws of physics do prohibit certain things
absolutely, we can't know with absolute certainty that the laws of physics cannot be
broken. And that tiny sliver of uncertainty and doubt allows for a tiny possibility that
anything logically possible could potentially be possibly possible.
*and in this case I mean the Christian god and not gods in general, as there are potential
god concepts that don't violate the laws of physics.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOne can hold that God does not exist; and yet also hold that it is epistemically possible for oneself that God exists. Just like one can believe that P while also acknowledging that it is epistemically possible that not-P. This is in fact the epistemologically responsible position when one's evidence for P is good, or even overwhelming, and yet not perfect; when the evidence is good enough to justify belief that P and yet not sufficient to guarantee that P. This is the case with virtually all of our inquiries into the world; our evidence is virtually never good enough for epistemic certainty. So it beggars belief that you could not grasp this distinction. You're just playing dumb again, methinks.
I guess my mind gets a little numb when trying to discern the distinction between the idea that God does not exist and the belief that the existence of God is not possible.
By all means, clarify the position for me!
Or, in keeping with another recent thread where we had some discussion, we could also put this into possible world semantics. One could hold that although God does not exist in the actual world, it is still the case that there are possible worlds wherein God does exist. Again, it would take an extraordinary sort of evidence to be able to justify the claim that it is not possible that God exists, and the world does not admit of such evidence. So, naturally, even strong atheists who hold that God does not exist are not committed to the claim that God's existence is not possible. Seriously, it is hard to understand how you can keep failing to grasp this....
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
21 Jan 14
Originally posted by LemonJello"This is the case with virtually all of our inquiries into the world; our evidence is virtually never good enough for epistemic certainty. "
One can hold that God does not exist; and yet also hold that it is epistemically possible for oneself that God exists. Just like one can believe that P while also acknowledging that it is epistemically possible that not-P. This is in fact the epistemologically responsible position when one's evidence for P is good, or even overwhelming, and yet not perf ...[text shortened]... is not possible. Seriously, it is hard to understand how you can keep failing to grasp this....
This is the point of separation between the two camps. Is the existence of deity, or any specific deity, an inquiry into the world that can be expressed in terms of epistemic possibility and evidence?
Is the theist's certainty about deity's existence the result of their analysis of the world, or is their analysis of the world a result of their certainty?
21 Jan 14
Originally posted by googlefudgeWhy would I read the drivel of your bio, since you clearly have no clue as to what constitutes an atheist?
No no, no and yet more no.
Go read my bio ffs.
Agnosticism/gnosticism is a question about KNOWLEDGE.
Atheism/theism is a question about belief.
You have to believe something as a prerequisite for knowledge, but belief
in and of itself is not knowledge.
You can believe something but not know something [or claim to know something]
Atheism ...[text shortened]... ity. Your post is at best a pack of ignorant lies... you don't want to know what it is at worst.
In one sentence you declare it a question of belief (although in your confusion you insert that it's a lack of belief), and then try to include people who cannot have a belief either way since they lack the ability to hold a belief of any kind, let alone anything specifically related to God.
Your insistence that the term atheist ought to be considered different here than it is throughout the world by most people, than it is by the majority of definitions of in the majority of accessible dictionaries is simply not compelling.
If the prefix a is used to denote no, absence of, without, lack of; not why are to suspend that knowledge here for your new improved but you never really know?
21 Jan 14
Originally posted by googlefudgeThanks for making the case even more obvious.
I don't believe that unicorns exist on Earth. [or have ever existed on this Earth]
That is I don't believe that there is a breed of exceptionally fast albino white
horses with a Narwhal tusk sticking out their heads living anywhere on the Earth.
[hidden] [ignoring the possibility of them existing elsewhere in the universe for the moment] [/hidden] ...[text shortened]... ds in general, as there are potential
god concepts that don't violate the laws of physics.[/i]
I don't believe that unicorns exist on Earth. [or have ever existed on this Earth]
So you don't lack a belief regarding unicorns.
You believe they don't exist.
See how that works?
And that tiny sliver of uncertainty and doubt allows for a tiny possibility that
anything logically possible could potentially be possibly possible.
So regarding your belief about God, you:
a) are undecided
b) are unsure
c) cannot comment
21 Jan 14
Originally posted by LemonJelloOh, I'm grasping it, alright.
One can hold that God does not exist; and yet also hold that it is epistemically possible for oneself that God exists. Just like one can believe that P while also acknowledging that it is epistemically possible that not-P. This is in fact the epistemologically responsible position when one's evidence for P is good, or even overwhelming, and yet not perf ...[text shortened]... is not possible. Seriously, it is hard to understand how you can keep failing to grasp this....
I'm just not grasping at air in a doomed attempt of survival, like these explanations are doing.
If a person has rejected God, they have--- wait for it--- rejected God.
They haven't said, "I reject the concept of God, but I reserve the right to change my mind at a later point."
They have said, "I reject God. Period. Full stop."
If a person has committed themselves for that tweener position, they're saying, "Even though I don't think there's enough evidence either way, I'm going to side with 'not God' as opposed to 'God,' until there's more to sway my teeter totter the other direction.
These folks are theological pussies, for lack of a better word.
They pretend they're making a decision to decide later, but they've already made a decision: no such thing as no man's land.
The switch is either on or off, for that person who is considering the question.
21 Jan 14
Originally posted by JS357
"This is the case with virtually all of our inquiries into the world; our evidence is virtually never good enough for epistemic certainty. "
This is the point of separation between the two camps. Is the existence of deity, or any specific deity, an inquiry into the world that can be expressed in terms of epistemic possibility and evidence?
Is the theist ...[text shortened]... t of their analysis of the world, or is their analysis of the world a result of their certainty?
Is the existence of deity, or any specific deity, an inquiry into the world that can be expressed in terms of epistemic possibility and evidence?
Yes, of course. As long as theological cognitivism extends to whatever conception of deity at issue.
Is the theist's certainty about deity's existence the result of their analysis of the world, or is their analysis of the world a result of their certainty?
Not sure what you mean. At any rate, there's no reason to operate under the assumption that the general theist is psychologically certain in his or her theistic belief.
- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 19036
21 Jan 14
Anyone who says 1 or 7 is clearly scared of the possibility of being wrong, no one can prove or disprove the existence of a God/gods and therefor can't realistically say they are certain.
And it is a kind of faith not believing in any God, although not the same kind of faith than believing in one.
6.5 for me.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWow! You are so confused!
Oh, I'm grasping it, alright.
I'm just not grasping at air in a doomed attempt of survival, like these explanations are doing.
If a person has rejected God, they have--- wait for it--- rejected God.
They haven't said, "I reject the concept of God, but I reserve the right to change my mind at a later point."
They have said, "I reject God. Period. Full ...[text shortened]... man's land.
The switch is either on or off, for that person who is considering the question.
The strong atheist I mentioned doesn't say "Even though I don't think there's enough evidence either way, I'm going to side with 'not God' as opposed to 'God,' until there's more to sway my teeter totter the other direction." He says God does not exist. (Or that he knows God does not exist. ) And yet, if he is responsible, he will also tell you that it is possible that God exists; and further that he stands amenable to revision of his position if new evidence would so dictate. And this is all perfectly consistent. He will be 6.9999 etc, but not 7. Again, not even strong atheists are going to be committed to 7, unless they are being irresponsible to the extent that their psychological suredness outpaces what the evidence actually recommends. This would be the same sort of irresponsibility that attends the theist who answers 1.