|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: Atheist pAradox [Re: hTx]
#21801304 - 06/13/15 09:23 AM (8 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
I don't really have any comment on the proceedings, but I thought it would be edifying to provide the dictionary definitions of the terms being considered:
from Merriam-Webster:
atheist, n. \ˈā-thē-ist\ : a person who believes that God does not exist
: one who believes that there is no deity
agnostic, n. \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\ : a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not
: a person who does not believe or is unsure of something
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
So at least maybe we can get that straight.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
secondorder
Amanda Hug'n'kiss



Registered: 04/05/15
Posts: 532
Loc: Queensland, Australia
Last seen: 9 months, 6 days
|
|
In the five seconds I took to google define it, I got this:
-atheist
"A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods."
Doesn't this make the most sense to people? Doesn't it make sense to take the word for what it is? Atheist... A-theist. Not-theist. A-symmetrical, A-typical, A-theist.
|
Sammysong
Dreamer



Registered: 09/09/12
Posts: 584
Loc: Idios kosmos
Last seen: 6 years, 2 months
|
|
Quote:
No it isn't. Atheism... A-theism. An atheist is someone who is not a theist. I am not a theist, therefore i am an atheist. I think it is possible, but improbable that a god exists. I don't need to negate the existence of a god in order to be an atheist, I simply need to not be a theist.
Dismissal of all evidence is not an argument against God. It is mere denial of reality that there are indeed infinite evidences for the existence of a first cause. Claiming there’s no evidence for God is tantamount to claiming to have proved that all proposed evidences, ever, are wrong. This has never been done by anyone, ever.
The atheist, though he will always deny it, because of personal wishes that there be no God, is always left with nothing to found his own beliefs on. What do we see instead? Nothing but denial and lame attempts at shirking his share of the burden of proof. Atheists always shirk this by mere caviling and, as always, denial that they even have any such burden. But they do have such a burden anyway – shirked or not, admitted or not.
Atheists tend to assume that if one has no evidence for God’s existence, then one ought to believe that God does not exist. False. What the atheist fails to see is that atheism is just as much a knowledge claim “There is no God” as theism’s “There is a God”.
The atheist cannot say, “Well I don’t claim there is no God, only that I don’t believe there is”. But such would lead to agnosticism, not real atheism. If one does not know there is no God, one has no grounds to believe there is no God, no ultimate first cause. Back to burden of proof! Is there evidence that no God exists? No. None whatsoever.
The atheist must give plausible reasons for rejecting God’s existence.
--------------------
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
|
--------------------
|
Dark_Star
train driver pervading a desktop


Registered: 08/20/04
Posts: 31,859
Loc: Uranus
|
|
--------------------
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
|
I will believe when all of the religious nutters come to a universal consensus.
Amen.
--------------------
|
Dark_Star
train driver pervading a desktop


Registered: 08/20/04
Posts: 31,859
Loc: Uranus
|
|
Best thing is that picture is not a joke or parody. Its from the Landover Baptist Church.
--------------------
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
|
It is difficult to satirize an organization that is so loopy that mockery is indistinguishable from dogma.
--------------------
|
falcon



Registered: 04/01/02
Posts: 8,005
Last seen: 1 day, 42 minutes
|
|
Quote:
Sammysong said:
Quote:
No it isn't. Atheism... A-theism. An atheist is someone who is not a theist. I am not a theist, therefore i am an atheist. I think it is possible, but improbable that a god exists. I don't need to negate the existence of a god in order to be an atheist, I simply need to not be a theist.
Dismissal of all evidence is not an argument against God. It is mere denial of reality that there are indeed infinite evidences for the existence of a first cause. Claiming there’s no evidence for God is tantamount to claiming to have proved that all proposed evidences, ever, are wrong. This has never been done by anyone, ever.
The atheist, though he will always deny it, because of personal wishes that there be no God, is always left with nothing to found his own beliefs on. What do we see instead? Nothing but denial and lame attempts at shirking his share of the burden of proof. Atheists always shirk this by mere caviling and, as always, denial that they even have any such burden. But they do have such a burden anyway – shirked or not, admitted or not.
Atheists tend to assume that if one has no evidence for God’s existence, then one ought to believe that God does not exist. False. What the atheist fails to see is that atheism is just as much a knowledge claim “There is no God” as theism’s “There is a God”.
The atheist cannot say, “Well I don’t claim there is no God, only that I don’t believe there is”. But such would lead to agnosticism, not real atheism. If one does not know there is no God, one has no grounds to believe there is no God, no ultimate first cause. Back to burden of proof! Is there evidence that no God exists? No. None whatsoever.
The atheist must give plausible reasons for rejecting God’s existence.
I'm not seeing where secondorder has shown that he believes anything about God's existence, beliefs are absolute. It seems to me all he said was that there was no evidence of God. Atheism is a funny word, it does not necessarily mean that one is opposed to Theists, only that one is not one.
Doesn't look to me like secondorder has a burden of proof.
Now I'd like to hear why if there is a first cause why it would be a God.
|
clam_dude
stranger in astrange land

Registered: 09/10/03
Posts: 1,717
Loc: twilight zone
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
|
Re: Atheist pAradox [Re: hTx]
#21806927 - 06/14/15 03:40 PM (8 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
hTx said: I am agnostic...
Doesn't this mean that you don't have a particular belief in a particular god? And wouldn't this make you an atheist?
-------------------- "I would like to thank god for making me an atheist" - Ricky Gervais
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
Quote:
clam_dude said:
Quote:
hTx said: I am agnostic...
Doesn't this mean that you don't have a particular belief in a particular god? And wouldn't this make you an atheist?
hTx means that he doesn't know whether a God or gods exist or not, and is open to the notion that it could go either way. I refer you to the dictionary definitions at the top of this page to answer your question more specifically. I don't know why so much fighting goes on over the definitions of these words, but whatever.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
clam_dude
stranger in astrange land

Registered: 09/10/03
Posts: 1,717
Loc: twilight zone
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
|
|
Quote:
Sammysong said:
Dismissal of all evidence is not an argument against God. It is mere denial of reality that there are indeed infinite evidences for the existence of a first cause. Claiming there’s no evidence for God is tantamount to claiming to have proved that all proposed evidences, ever, are wrong. This has never been done by anyone, ever.
What do you mean by "proposed evidences"? There is no evidence for god.
Quote:
The atheist, though he will always deny it, because of personal wishes that there be no God...
Wrong, most atheists don't believe in god because there is no evidence for it. Some atheists actually wish there was a god, but can't bring themselves to believe something just because they want it to be true.
Quote:
...is always left with nothing to found his own beliefs on. What do we see instead? Nothing but denial and lame attempts at shirking his share of the burden of proof. Atheists always shirk this by mere caviling and, as always, denial that they even have any such burden. But they do have such a burden anyway – shirked or not, admitted or not.
My beliefs are founded on the evidence of reality and my life experiences. I guess yours are founded on fairy tales?
Atheism is not a specific belief in anything. How could there be a burden of proof for a lack of a specific belief? If I told you I believed in the tooth fairy, you would ask me for evidence and rightly so. And if I asked you to provide evidence that the tooth fairy doesn't exist, you would say the burden of proof is on me to show it does exist.
Do you disagree with this?
Quote:
Atheists tend to assume that if one has no evidence for God’s existence, then one ought to believe that God does not exist. False. What the atheist fails to see is that atheism is just as much a knowledge claim “There is no God” as theism’s “There is a God”.
No, it's not.
Quote:
The atheist cannot say, “Well I don’t claim there is no God, only that I don’t believe there is”. But such would lead to agnosticism, not real atheism.
And this is why most atheists are also agnostic.
Quote:
If one does not know there is no God, one has no grounds to believe there is no God, no ultimate first cause. Back to burden of proof! Is there evidence that no God exists? No. None whatsoever.
The atheist must give plausible reasons for rejecting God’s existence.
It's funny how you should talk about burden of proof and say that the burden is on the atheist to provide reasons to reject god's existence (which is, of course, impossible). Just think back the tooth fairy analogy and it should all make sense.
-------------------- "I would like to thank god for making me an atheist" - Ricky Gervais
Edited by clam_dude (06/14/15 06:54 PM)
|
clam_dude
stranger in astrange land

Registered: 09/10/03
Posts: 1,717
Loc: twilight zone
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said:
Quote:
clam_dude said:
Quote:
hTx said: I am agnostic...
Doesn't this mean that you don't have a particular belief in a particular god? And wouldn't this make you an atheist?
hTx means that he doesn't know whether a God or gods exist or not, and is open to the notion that it could go either way. I refer you to the dictionary definitions at the top of this page to answer your question more specifically. I don't know why so much fighting goes on over the definitions of these words, but whatever.
I don't accept this definition of atheism, nor do any atheist I've ever talked to. Religious people have had their way defining atheism, maybe we should listen to what atheists themselves say they believe.
The definition of "agnostic" at the top of the page is more applicable to what most atheists actually believe than the definition given of atheism.
-------------------- "I would like to thank god for making me an atheist" - Ricky Gervais
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
Then why not call yourself an agnostic? That's how they've always been defined...
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
clam_dude
stranger in astrange land

Registered: 09/10/03
Posts: 1,717
Loc: twilight zone
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said:
hTx means that he doesn't know whether a God or gods exist or not, and is open to the notion that it could go either way. I refer you to the dictionary definitions at the top of this page to answer your question more specifically. I don't know why so much fighting goes on over the definitions of these words, but whatever.
Let me add this - correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't you present during my "atheism is the only rational position" thread? If so, you should know better than to define atheism as it's defined at the top of the page. Does it not make sense to accept the definition that atheists themselves identify with? It's almost comical how we go around in circles with atheists saying what they themselves believe (that they don't "know" there is no god), and then to have theists come along and tell us what our beliefs are. And you don't know why there is so much fighting over the definitions of words
-------------------- "I would like to thank god for making me an atheist" - Ricky Gervais
Edited by clam_dude (06/14/15 06:56 PM)
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you've said that the definition of atheist that you prefer is defined in the dictionary under the entry for agnostic. Why not call yourself an agnostic, then? Language isn't arbitrary, dude. What about all the people out there who disbelieve in deity? What shall we call them? There's a lot of them!
And by the way, if I had to choose for credibility and sound reasoning between some semantically stubborn agnatheists and the dictionary of the language, I'd choose the dictionary. Words don't mean whatever you want them to.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
clam_dude
stranger in astrange land

Registered: 09/10/03
Posts: 1,717
Loc: twilight zone
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: Then why not call yourself an agnostic? That's how they've always been defined...
Imagine if we had many different labels for those who don't believe in the tooth fairy. One could be an atooth-fairyest, or merely "agnostic" as to whether or not there is a tooth fairy. This seems ridiculous because it is. There are many things that you don't specifically believe in and you don't feel compelled to say you're "agnostic." My contention is that people who call themselves "agnostic" as opposed to "atheist" do so because of social pressure and the negative perception of the word "atheist". If I was surrounded by more religious people, then I too would probably call myself "agnostic".
But as to weather or not I believe in god, the answer is no. And so I'm an atheist and I don't see the point in using euphemisms.
-------------------- "I would like to thank god for making me an atheist" - Ricky Gervais
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
|
Quote:
clam_dude said: But as to weather or not I believe in god, the answer is no. And so I'm an atheist and I don't see the point in using euphemisms.
So you're not part of the problem.
-------------------- Vi Veri Universum Vivus Vici
|
clam_dude
stranger in astrange land

Registered: 09/10/03
Posts: 1,717
Loc: twilight zone
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said: Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you've said that the definition of atheist that you prefer is defined in the dictionary under the entry for agnostic. Why not call yourself an agnostic, then? Language isn't arbitrary, dude. What about all the people out there who disbelieve in deity? What shall we call them? There's a lot of them!
And by the way, if I had to choose for credibility and sound reasoning between some semantically stubborn agnatheists and the dictionary of the language, I'd choose the dictionary. Words don't mean whatever you want them to. 
This is pretty simple - find me one self identifying atheist who claims to know there is no god. I bet you'll have a hard time. None of the atheists who's books I've read or have ever talked to claim to know there is no god.
And so for practicality sake, doesn't it make sense to go with the definition that the vast majority of atheists today identify with?
I mean when you say that atheists "know there is no god," I don't know who you're referring to because it's none of the atheists I've ever encountered or read, and I have spent a good deal of time debating and reading about this subject.
-------------------- "I would like to thank god for making me an atheist" - Ricky Gervais
|
deff
just love everyone



Registered: 05/01/04
Posts: 9,406
Loc: clarity
Last seen: 53 minutes, 4 seconds
|
|
well just to clarify, the dictionary definition that DQ gave of atheist was someone who believes there is no god, not someone who knows there is no god, which is a big difference. likewise, believing there is a god without knowing it for sure would make one a theist.
--------------------
|
|