|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
Atheist pAradox
#21768773 - 06/06/15 02:54 AM (8 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Atheists believe in a sort of nothingness. literally nothing , an eternal blackness upon death. But then, thats quite alike pre-birth or conception, isnt it? So then, which is it? Death? Or pre-birth?
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|
Buster_Brown
L'une


Registered: 09/17/11
Posts: 11,309
Last seen: 3 days, 7 hours
|
Re: Atheist pAradox [Re: hTx]
#21769130 - 06/06/15 06:44 AM (8 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Aha! A psychological profiling prepared by cultural sociologists! I'm on to you Professor Moriarty!
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
Re: Atheist pAradox [Re: hTx]
#21769322 - 06/06/15 08:07 AM (8 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Atheists believe in a sort of nothingness.
Despite covering this silliness hundreds of times, the mental thickness remains. Atheism is not a belief in anything, it is a refutation towards a specific god claim.
The atheist stance is simple: that the god claimant provided insufficient evidence to back up their assertion. That is it. There is no universal dogma regarding life after death.
Now can we move on to something with some more meat and with less semantic jerking off?
--------------------
|
Cognitive_Shift
CS actual




Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 29,591
|
|
What's the difference between pre-conception and death?
-------------------- L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs
|
Tropism
ChasingTail


Registered: 09/12/09
Posts: 2,039
|
|
One doesn't involve cooking your mama breakfast.
|
Khancious
da Crow



Registered: 12/05/12
Posts: 628
Loc: Behind Everything
|
|
Quote:
OrgoneConclusion said:
Now can we move on to something with some more meat and with less semantic jerking off?
Like feminism?
-------------------- I am that, which is.
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs



Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
|
Re: Atheist pAradox [Re: hTx]
#21789601 - 06/10/15 06:17 PM (8 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Death? Or pre-birth?
I've always said that if you used to be a woman, you become an egg, and if you used to be a man, you become a sperm. If you had no soul in your previous life, you become dead sperm. 'Tis simple.
--------------------
   All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
MinnesnowtaNice
FriendofHagrid


Registered: 09/18/13
Posts: 1,316
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
|
Re: Atheist pAradox [Re: hTx]
#21790632 - 06/10/15 09:53 PM (8 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
hTx said: Atheists believe in a sort of nothingness. literally nothing , an eternal blackness upon death. But then, thats quite alike pre-birth or conception, isnt it? So then, which is it? Death? Or pre-birth?
Being an atheist I can say all it means is I don't believe in religion or a higher creator/power. It doesn't mean we believe in nothingness?
-------------------- we are all thought forms in a cloud of synchronistic events.
|
Arctic W. Fox

Registered: 09/23/14
Posts: 1,357
Last seen: 5 years, 2 months
|
|
All sorts of fail, this thread is.
|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
|
Haha so now all the atheists believe in an after-life?
(;
So you see believing in nothing after-death still implies something?
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|
Arctic W. Fox

Registered: 09/23/14
Posts: 1,357
Last seen: 5 years, 2 months
|
Re: Atheist pAradox [Re: hTx]
#21791347 - 06/11/15 01:24 AM (8 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
I believe I'm gonna need another beer.
|
secondorder
Amanda Hug'n'kiss



Registered: 04/05/15
Posts: 532
Loc: Queensland, Australia
Last seen: 9 months, 6 days
|
Re: Atheist pAradox [Re: hTx]
#21791358 - 06/11/15 01:27 AM (8 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Haha so now all the atheists believe in an after-life?
(;
So you see believing in nothing after-death still implies something?
Why can't we just leave it as a question mark? Nobody knows what happens after death, and that includes you!
|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
|
Lol where are you getting i know what happens after death? I'm simply stating that if we think nothing happens, it introduces an interesting paradox.
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|
secondorder
Amanda Hug'n'kiss



Registered: 04/05/15
Posts: 532
Loc: Queensland, Australia
Last seen: 9 months, 6 days
|
Re: Atheist pAradox [Re: hTx]
#21795685 - 06/12/15 01:16 AM (8 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Lol where are you getting i know what happens after death?
You seem to hint at it (among other things):
Quote:
Atheists believe in a sort of nothingness...
You make this statement as if you were talking about a group that you are not a part of. That was just my guess, I suppose it's possible that you are an atheist. If you are not an atheist, then you are a theist, and most theists tend to believe in an afterlife. Again, I'm not putting you in this category, you have just tended (from what I've seen of your posts) to adopt propositions of a theistic flavor.
|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
|
I am agnostic, but i have had many interesting and intense experiences of a mystical nature.
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
Re: Atheist pAradox [Re: hTx]
#21795790 - 06/12/15 01:53 AM (8 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
I have met many atheists which say nothing happens at death, like a candle who's flames gone out. Just poof, gone.
I brought up to a few that would be a lot like what its like before being born..and if we emerged once from nothing, why not again?
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|
Fattiglapp
Registered: 06/12/15
Posts: 5
Last seen: 8 years, 7 months
|
Re: Atheist pAradox [Re: hTx]
#21796038 - 06/12/15 04:39 AM (8 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
The topic could be better worded.
Alan Watts said something similarly in a talk and it does equate to the infinite monkey theorem. But I think we would have to realize what consciousness is before we get to the point where we think it can be recreated. Let us say it is a illusion created out of multiple senses being put together and given the ability of thinking. Then my question is: If we would make a perfect copy of your brain and put it in function, would you then perceive from both brains or only exist in your original one? E.g. is the other you really the same you?
-------------------- shall we go, you and I while we can.. Through, the transitive nightfall of diamonds
|
Sammysong
Dreamer



Registered: 09/09/12
Posts: 584
Loc: Idios kosmos
Last seen: 6 years, 2 months
|
|
There have been no cultures founded on 'atheism' as a philosophy, unless you count communist states such as the USSR and North Korea, which are not very good models in terms of respect for human rights and observance of the rule of law. All of the traditional cultures grew from religious roots, or incorporated religious ideas in their formation. Of course times have changed since these cultures became established, but the role of religious myths and ideas are still foundational in respect to the deep ideological structures around which these societies are constructed. Western Liberalism, notwithstanding the move away from religion, still has deep roots in the Judeo-Christian heritage and the values that it helped to create, such as respect for the individual, freedom of conscience, and so on. Many of the virtues which secular philosophies take for granted actually had their roots in such ideas.
It is true that atheists can be good people, but that must be attributable to either human nature, or the society they grew up in. Human beings are not naturally disposed towards doing good or being good. If they were, there would be no need of laws and police forces, not to mention armies. If they are indeed good people, one is entitled to ask why. If you jettison the cultural heritage of tradition, with its various fables, myths, homilies and moral stories, you will have an immense amount of work to do to re-invent something equivalent to them. Where are the principles that you build a replacement framework around? So, even though it is true that atheists can be good people, it is hard to show what about atheism, in particular, makes them that way. Who are the atheist moral philosophers to whom we should look for guidance?
This leads to the question of what are 'real goods'. I would argue that ultimately the question of whether there are real goods, a moral good that it is really worth pursuing, is hard to articulate in atheist terms. Atheism is a negative argument - it is based around the denial of something. The question is, what is the need that brought forth that which atheism denies? What does it actually offer? Granted, the atheist does not believe it offers anything. But this means, they don't feel they have to offer anything in return. Now the religious feel that they are achieving something through their faith -either part of a community of belief, or a framework which validates good actions, and ultimately, something corresponding to "heaven". The atheist response is, there is no ultimate meaning, such ideas as 'heaven' are a myth for the weak minded. And you just have to accept that fact, because it is said to be 'rational'.
Richard Dawkins, one of the leading proponents of atheism, freely admits that Darwinian principles are a terrible basis for a social philosophy. When pressed as to what a social philosophy might consist of in the absence of any religious ideas, he says that people need to 'create their own meaning'. But he also says that the Universe is ultimately a meaningless place, so how one is to 'create meaning' in the absence of any real or objective moral order, remains an open question.
--------------------
|
secondorder
Amanda Hug'n'kiss



Registered: 04/05/15
Posts: 532
Loc: Queensland, Australia
Last seen: 9 months, 6 days
|
|
You've made many false claims. I'm going to focus on only the more egregious.
Quote:
I would argue that ultimately the question of whether there are real goods, a moral good that it is really worth pursuing, is hard to articulate in atheist terms.
I think Sam Harris in "The Moral Landscape" does a pretty good job of it. I'll try my best to sum up his argument:
It is self evident that suffering is bad, and happiness is good We should therefore strive for well-being Morality, therefore, has to do with the well-being of conscious creatures. The well-being of conscious creatures has a lot to do with their brain-states. Brain states are measurable through scientific means Morality, is therefore ultimately a scientific field
Quote:
Atheism is a negative argument - it is based around the denial of something.
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.
Quote:
The question is, what is the need that brought forth that which atheism denies? What does it actually offer? Granted, the atheist does not believe it offers anything. But this means, they don't feel they have to offer anything in return. Now the religious feel that they are achieving something through their faith -either part of a community of belief, or a framework which validates good actions, and ultimately, something corresponding to "heaven".
I don't believe that religion doesn't offer anything, I don't see why you have to put words in the mouths of atheists. Again, I think it apt to give one of Sam Harris's analogies: Believing in Santa serves a purpose for many millions of children. It makes them happy and excited, it is a shining example of universal generosity and love. Upon learning that Santa isn't real, we don't replace the belief with another belief in an imaginary character. "Do we replace Santa Claus with anything? No. We just oblige people to grow up." There are ways of developing a community, finding purpose in life, encouraging good behavior and deterring bad behavior, without pretending to know things we do not know. A belief in the supernatural is not required to live a good life.
Quote:
The atheist response is, there is no ultimate meaning, such ideas as 'heaven' are a myth for the weak minded. And you just have to accept that fact, because it is said to be 'rational'.
Not true. Again, putting words in the mouths of atheists. You are confusing objectivity outside of perception for objectivity within perception. Me experiencing joy from viewing art is a subjective phenomenon, however, it is an objective fact that I experience joy from viewing art. Subjective meaning becomes necessitates objective meaning. If Sammysong draws meaning from parenting, then it is an objective fact that Sammysong is living a meaningful life, where else could meaning exist, even in theory.. other than in our experiences?
|
Kinko
Stranger



Registered: 01/07/11
Posts: 3,024
Last seen: 4 months, 29 days
|
Re: Atheist pAradox [Re: hTx]
#21801148 - 06/13/15 08:33 AM (8 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
hTx said: Atheists believe in a sort of nothingness. literally nothing , an eternal blackness upon death. But then, thats quite alike pre-birth or conception, isnt it? So then, which is it? Death? Or pre-birth?
I bet you are atheist to the Koran or Muslim religion.. how. naive of you...
|
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: 22 hours, 34 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: 3 minutes, 14 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.
--------------------
|
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: 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. 
Here's the definition of agnostic from the top of the page "a person who does not have a definite belief about whether God exists or not."
Now, if this person was asked on a questionnaire "do you believe in god, yes or no?" what would be the appropriate answer?
-------------------- "I would like to thank god for making me an atheist" - Ricky Gervais
|
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: deff]
#21807112 - 06/14/15 04:36 PM (8 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
deff said: 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.
Well this is true, and so this definition is more accurate than those that claim atheists "know" there is no god. However, I still have a problem with the way it's worded. It's addressing a belief in the lack of a god, as opposed to lack of belief in god.
-------------------- "I would like to thank god for making me an atheist" - Ricky Gervais
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: Atheist pAradox [Re: clam_dude] 1
#21807113 - 06/14/15 04:36 PM (8 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
A true agnostic would say, "I don't know." Neither "yes" nor "no." There is a difference between lack of belief, and disbelief.
-------------------- 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: A true agnostic would say, "I don't know." Neither "yes" nor "no." There is a difference between lack of belief, and disbelief.
Wow you really aren't getting what I'm saying.
It's a yes or no question. The answer would be no. And to say no to this question is not the same thing as saying that one believes there is no god.
If you "don't know," then you don't have a particular belief in a god. The answer is no. Saying no to this question is not incompatible with saying you "don't know"
-------------------- "I would like to thank god for making me an atheist" - Ricky Gervais
|
DividedQuantum
Outer Head


Registered: 12/06/13
Posts: 9,819
|
Re: Atheist pAradox [Re: clam_dude] 2
#21807184 - 06/14/15 04:57 PM (8 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
oh, really?
-------------------- 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
|
|
I'll sum it up like this - all of this debating over the semantics of "athiest" or "agnostic" seems about as absurd to me as debating over different labels for those who don't believe in the tooth fairy. You either believe in it or you don't. And people who say they don't believe in the tooth fairy don't generally get inundated with responses of "well how do you know there's no tooth fairy. You would have to know everything about the universe to claim such a thing. You really should say you're agnostic."
-------------------- "I would like to thank god for making me an atheist" - Ricky Gervais
Edited by clam_dude (06/14/15 05:15 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: oh, really?

Yes, really. And answering no to this question does not suggest that you "believe there is no god." It's perfectly compatible with agnosticism. I don't see what the problem is.
-------------------- "I would like to thank god for making me an atheist" - Ricky Gervais
|
clam_dude
stranger in astrange land

Registered: 09/10/03
Posts: 1,717
Loc: twilight zone
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
|
|
Let me put it this way. If the question was reversed to be "do you believe that there is no god," the answer would also be no.
p.s. Apologies for bombing this thread, I will take a breather now.
I was going to make another post, but I'll just add to this one since I have made so many. I just want to address this post:
Quote:
A true agnostic would say, "I don't know." Neither "yes" nor "no." ...
The position of "I don't know" is a perfectly reasonable answer to the question of "does god exist?" In fact, it's my answer as well. But this is not the question. The question is "do you believe that god exists?"
I know I may come across as trying to pigeonhole your beliefs. But I'm not asking for a yes or no answer to the question of god's existence. Of course, this is an unanswerable question. But if asked whether or not one has a belief in god, one can say no to that without saying no to the question of god's existence. An atheist simply says no to the question "do you believe in god?," not to the question of "is there a god?" And I believe this is where most of the confusion about this occurs.
-------------------- "I would like to thank god for making me an atheist" - Ricky Gervais
Edited by clam_dude (06/14/15 07:04 PM)
|
hTx
(:



Registered: 03/27/13
Posts: 5,724
Loc: Space-time
|
|
Arguing over definitions and terms again, eh dude?
Can't someone say "i dont know anything but i have many strong suspicions" without getting grouped into being an atheist?
You still butthurt over agnosticism being the only rational position instead of atheism.
Agnostics dont table public events and schools, or protest churches..
-------------------- zen by age ten times six hundred lifetimes Light up the darkness.
|
secondorder
Amanda Hug'n'kiss



Registered: 04/05/15
Posts: 532
Loc: Queensland, Australia
Last seen: 9 months, 6 days
|
Re: Atheist pAradox [Re: hTx]
#21813912 - 06/16/15 09:37 AM (8 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
DividedQuantum said:
Then why not call yourself an agnostic? That's how they've always been defined...
Did you just completely ignore the definition provided by our almighty father Google? Oh hail Google for thou knowest and I knowest not! Praise be to the one who has access to everything that is, has and will be known.
HA but in all seriousness, it's as if you searched for a specific definition to suit your own purposes, why not just take the most commonly understood definition of a word? Popularity determines meaning. Atheist... A- Theist... not a theist. How is this so complicated? Asymmetrical means not symmetrical, atypical means not typical etc. It's fairly easy to follow.
Quote:
Sammysong said: ...
I will now repeat your exact response, replacing 'God' with 'Ra' an ancient Egyptian Eagle-God of immense power, in an attempt to show you just how ridiculous your post was:
Quote:
Dismissal of all evidence is not an argument against Ra. 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 Ra 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 Ra, 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 Ra’s existence, then one ought to believe that Ra does not exist. False. What the atheist fails to see is that atheism is just as much a knowledge claim “There is no Ra” as theism’s “There is a Ra”.
The atheist cannot say, “Well I don’t claim there is no Ra, 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 Ra, one has no grounds to believe there is no Ra, no ultimate first cause. Back to burden of proof! Is there evidence that no Ra exists? No. None whatsoever.
The atheist must give plausible reasons for rejecting Ra’s existence.
|
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]
#21816946 - 06/16/15 10:01 PM (8 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
hTx said: Arguing over definitions and terms again, eh dude?
Can't someone say "i dont know anything but i have many strong suspicions" without getting grouped into being an atheist?
You still butthurt over agnosticism being the only rational position instead of atheism.
Agnostics dont table public events and schools, or protest churches..
Well fair enough - I think that many if not most people who call themselves agnostic have similar beliefs about god as those who call themselves atheist, beside the labels. But this isn't always the case as many "agnostics" believe there to be a plausible chance of a god existing. Perhaps you fit into this category.
So pardon me for calling you an atheist. But it still seems as though you want to push the narrative that atheists claim some sort of certainty about the lack of a deity, or lack of an afterlife (which has nothing to do with atheism anyway).
-------------------- "I would like to thank god for making me an atheist" - Ricky Gervais
|
Cognitive_Shift
CS actual




Registered: 12/11/07
Posts: 29,591
|
|
Quote:
clam_dude said: atheists claim some sort of certainty about the lack of a deity, or lack of an afterlife
You just defined Atheism. Undecided or what you call lack of certainty is called Agnostic. If you don't agree with this, you don't understand what Atheism means.
-------------------- L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs
|
clam_dude
stranger in astrange land

Registered: 09/10/03
Posts: 1,717
Loc: twilight zone
Last seen: 6 years, 3 months
|
|
Quote:
Cognitive_Shift said:
Quote:
clam_dude said: atheists claim some sort of certainty about the lack of a deity, or lack of an afterlife
You just defined Atheism. Undecided or what you call lack of certainty is called Agnostic. If you don't agree with this, you don't understand what Atheism means.
What an obvious example of quote mining.
-------------------- "I would like to thank god for making me an atheist" - Ricky Gervais
|
|