Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Theoretical Skeptic on October 19, 2020, 04:13:24 AM
-
In nearly 30 years of discussion on the subject of theism and atheism the most knowledgeable person I have ever come across was a British atheist. Since nearly all of the people I've had discussions with were American I've never had a discussion on how the subject might have differed from my own American perspective.
I see American theism as primarily traditional, cultural and familial. I don't think much attention is given to any academic or intellectual consideration. Theists here are by majority Christian, lacking, if not opposed to, in any real understanding of the Bible or theology. They grow up in an obviously hypocritical fundamentalist paradigm which they will probably leave when they mature to "sow their oats" and perhaps return when it's time to "lay down roots." Archaic terms for modern times perhaps and in fact perhaps this has changed over time, but the point is there isn't a great deal of thought put into theism in America.
I believe that aside from these traditional, cultural and familial aspects, most American theists are more atheist than theist. As Canadian Jordan Peterson said of atheists like Harris and Dawkins "the universe they inhabit is intensely conditioned by mythological presuppositions that they take it for granted." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwi9Q9apHGI
The British differ from Americans in two significant areas. They are better educated and their history goes back much further. If I had to offer an uneducated guess I would think that the indoctrination a British person would experience would be more inclined to atheism and the sociopolitical expression of the fundamentalist Christian right would be far less oppressive than in the states. So, then, I've always wondered, what is the motivation for militant atheism among the British?
-
I suspect the short answer to that would be that in the UK, as various surveys have found, there has been a weakening of the privilege and social influence of organised Christianity over recent decades, to the extent that it has now become a background noise that is easily ignored by those who have no affiliation to, or interest in, organised Christianity: some of us are, as I heard one cleric describe it, 'unchurched', hence for us the traditional, cultural and familial aspects you mention are irrelevant.
My impression is, and I may have the wrong impression, that in the US where you are Christianity is still a factor: there are a plethora of churches and pastors, and politicians talk about 'God' and mention 'praying' constantly and that any politician who stated they were an atheist would have a brief career.
-
So, then, I've always wondered, what is the motivation for militant atheism among the British?
I think that might be the overestimation of a group, if indeed you can call "militant atheism" a grouping.
The British, and even here there are difficulties, as the religious traditions in N. Ireland vary significantly to those in England, are I think less inclined to "militant Christianity" than the population of the USA, and even in the USA there are huge variations between different regions.
I don't think that the claim that we are better educated (if we are) is a correlating factor, although history might well be. You are missing a large part of the population out here though. Namely the apathetic. They neither think about nor care about religion or atheism in the UK.
-
TS,
In nearly 30 years of discussion on the subject of theism and atheism the most knowledgeable person I have ever come across was a British atheist. Since nearly all of the people I've had discussions with were American I've never had a discussion on how the subject might have differed from my own American perspective.
I see American theism as primarily traditional, cultural and familial. I don't think much attention is given to any academic or intellectual consideration. Theists here are by majority Christian, lacking, if not opposed to, in any real understanding of the Bible or theology. They grow up in an obviously hypocritical fundamentalist paradigm which they will probably leave when they mature to "sow their oats" and perhaps return when it's time to "lay down roots." Archaic terms for modern times perhaps and in fact perhaps this has changed over time, but the point is there isn't a great deal of thought put into theism in America.
I believe that aside from these traditional, cultural and familial aspects, most American theists are more atheist than theist. As Canadian Jordan Peterson said of atheists like Harris and Dawkins "the universe they inhabit is intensely conditioned by mythological presuppositions that they take it for granted." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwi9Q9apHGI
The British differ from Americans in two significant areas. They are better educated and their history goes back much further. If I had to offer an uneducated guess I would think that the indoctrination a British person would experience would be more inclined to atheism and the sociopolitical expression of the fundamentalist Christian right would be far less oppressive than in the states. So, then, I've always wondered, what is the motivation for militant atheism among the British?
Several issues there:
1. How would a "real understanding of the Bible" tell you anything about the truth or otherwise of its fundamental claims ("God" etc)?
2. What do you think JP's ""the universe they inhabit is intensely conditioned by mythological presuppositions that they take it for granted" actually means? I've seen him say similar things before, but have never understood what in tangible terms he actually means by it.
3. Re "the indoctrination a British person would experience would be more inclined to atheism", what indoctrination do you think there need be to find the arguments attempted to justify theism to be wrong? Atheism isn't a set of beliefs - it's just the absence of good reasons to accept the claims of theism. Were you "indoctrinated" into your a-leprechaunism?
4. What "militant atheism among the British" do you think there to be? I'm British and I've never seen atheists marching on Parliament with pitchforks in hand demanding the demolition of churches and suchlike. Did you mean just anti-theism perhaps?
-
I don't think that the claim that we are better educated (if we are) is a correlating factor, although history might well be. You are missing a large part of the population out here though. Namely the apathetic. They neither think about nor care about religion or atheism in the UK.
I think that is indeed the case: in the UK one can simply ignore religion without having to proclaim or subscribe to atheism and we don't have our politicians making religious references routinely and we don't have slogans like 'In God We Trust' printed on our money.
Religion is there if people want to participate if they feel so inclined as is, for example, golf. For those of us who are neither religious nor golfers (or religious golfers) these activities occur in the background and would only be issue if the adherents of either presumed that what was important for them should be equally important for the rest of us, or that their choice of preferred activity (be it religion and/or golf) merited special privileges.
-
The British differ from Americans in two significant areas. They are better educated and their history goes back much further. If I had to offer an uneducated guess I would think that the indoctrination a British person would experience would be more inclined to atheism and the sociopolitical expression of the fundamentalist Christian right would be far less oppressive than in the states.
Indoctrination is the RC method* but inculcation is a more apt term in the case of moderate CofE families I think. I don’t think it is so much “to” atheism or against theism, but more of an absence of the teaching or inculcation of a faith belief and the change of life styles that means Sunday is no longer a day for The Christian churches to decide how people should live on that particular day of the week.So, then, I've always wondered, what is the motivation for militant atheism among the British?
I can well understand why atheists feel they should speak out more clearly, more often and more strongly than before having been pushed aside, ignored, even by Philosophy and of course the theologians, but then there was not just one, but two World Wars wherein the news about its horrors were more widely known, and once TV documentaries exposed the fraudulent claims of spiritualists etc by means of recordings, films, time-lapse photography and so on, plus showing the reality of so many myths and apparent magic about the natural world, that it was high time theyi (atheists) spoke out. I hope the motivation was a desire to replace falsehoods with truth and knowledge, especially as the science and technology were clearly entirely without the need of any mysticism or magic to make them function.
*and this applies to Islam Hinduism, etc
-
My impression is, and I may have the wrong impression, that in the US where you are Christianity is still a factor: there are a plethora of churches and pastors, and politicians talk about 'God' and mention 'praying' constantly and that any politician who stated they were an atheist would have a brief career.
According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_politics_and_law) in the UK there have been about 50 and in the US about 22 atheist politicians. I would think that the difference would be essentially that the UK has had a head start. In other words what you say is true, but here in the states just in my relatively brief life that has changed dramatically while in the UK that same change has been more firmly established over time.
Now when I went to school you didn't hear much of God outside of the pledge. The teaching method here was adopted from Germany through Benjamin Bloom, as The Deliberate Dumbing Down Of America, by Charlotte Iserbyt indicates began in the late 1960's. Bloom's Taxonomy, which is still the primary guiding force in American education, wrote that the purpose of education is to change the thoughts, actions and feelings of students. To challenge their fixed beliefs. For example he claims his methodology could change a theist into an atheist in one hour. It wasn't an empty claim, it was demonstrably so.
They wanted to create dumbed down obedient workers.
-
The British, and even here there are difficulties, as the religious traditions in N. Ireland vary significantly to those in England, are I think less inclined to "militant Christianity" than the population of the USA, and even in the USA there are huge variations between different regions.
We have huge variations between different regions as well. I suppose everyone does. Here the Bible Belt and the New England states would differ considerably. Militant Christianity would be much more likely in the former than the latter, of course.
I don't think that the claim that we are better educated (if we are) is a correlating factor, although history might well be. You are missing a large part of the population out here though. Namely the apathetic. They neither think about nor care about religion or atheism in the UK.
That was part of my point. Here in the US there are, I suspect, more atheists than may be counted. I think most are apathetic. Sort of like Shintoism in Japan. Most wouldn't profess Shintoism but it's such a part of the very fabric of their environment they don't even acknowledge it.
-
According to Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_atheists_in_politics_and_law) in the UK there have been about 50 and in the US about 22 atheist politicians.
I would suspect that, in both cases, the true number is higher. I seriously doubt, for example, that Donald Trump is a theist (unless autotheism is a concept).
-
1. How would a "real understanding of the Bible" tell you anything about the truth or otherwise of its fundamental claims ("God" etc)?
In the summer of 332 BCE Alexander the Great was conquering the world. Two hundred years prior to that the Bible foretold his conquest and when he got to the gates of Jerusalem they welcomed him, showed him the prophecy and submitted. Greek influence was running rampant behind the wake of Alexander. For example they built a gymnasium where games were played that were intertwined with Greek mythology. Babylonian teachings began to influence Jewish thinking through Greek philosophy which had long adopted them.
Reading the Bible, you might pick up on the fact that the soul isn't an immortal part of the person that lives on, but the blood and life of any breathing creature which would lead you to discover Socrates influence changed the interpretation of the Bible. The Trinity from Plato. Then Constantine the Great's similar effect on Christianity in 325 CE introduced the pagan cross and reintroduced all of those old Babylonian teachings through the same Greek philosophy.
Then hell from Dante and Milton, Christmas through Dickens, the Rapture through Darby. You might even start looking around and discover that the writers of the Bible weren't monotheistic or polytheistic but henotheistic and that the Bible doesn't imply that the earth is flat, or created in six literal days six thousand years ago, snakes, donkeys and bushes talk, etc. Pretty much the vast majority of theism, which atheism is hinged upon, is nonsense. That's truth.
2. What do you think JP's ""the universe they inhabit is intensely conditioned by mythological presuppositions that they take it for granted" actually means? I've seen him say similar things before, but have never understood what in tangible terms he actually means by it.
He explains it pretty well in the video I linked to. What he means is that mythology, which he lumps Judeo-Christian teachings in with, not surprisingly given the answer to your first question, is the very foundation of Western culture. I would broaden that to include the entire world but we would have to go back to Dumuzi (Tammuz Ezekiel 8) otherwise known as Nimrod, founder of Babylon, but that would be a somewhat distracting excursion.
3. Re "the indoctrination a British person would experience would be more inclined to atheism", what indoctrination do you think there need be to find the arguments attempted to justify theism to be wrong? Atheism isn't a set of beliefs - it's just the absence of good reasons to accept the claims of theism. Were you "indoctrinated" into your a-leprechaunism?
I wasn't but I could have been. If atheism is the antithesis of theism then what is theism? The antithesis of a thing would incorporate a considerable portion of that which it is the antithesis of. Theism is no more wrong than atheism, that wasn't the point. The point is what were you indoctrinated for? Educated. Instructed.
The Hebrew and Greek word for spirit means an invisible active force that produces results. For example they can be translated as wind, breath, mental inclination or highly intelligent beings. The English words pneumatic and pneumonia come from the Greek word pneuma, translated spirit, wind, etc. So spirituality isn't necessarily supernatural or religious or involving a deity. Gods. It's the things that form us. Tradition, culture, art, music, nature, religion, everything. Fashion, sports, et cetera.
4. What "militant atheism among the British" do you think there to be? I'm British and I've never seen atheists marching on Parliament with pitchforks in hand demanding the demolition of churches and suchlike. Did you mean just anti-theism perhaps?
Militant is used in such a manner to imply a more aggressive support. Most atheists are apathetic. Militant atheists are the more outspoken, or concerned about the subject of theism vs. atheism. Really, I get your point. I myself hate terms like atheism, theism, militant - to me they are descriptive labels useful in conveying a general association but in themselves potentially limiting or misapplied. Let's just use the term "more outspoken atheists?"
-
I would suspect that, in both cases, the true number is higher. I seriously doubt, for example, that Donald Trump is a theist (unless autotheism is a concept).
Exactly. Much higher. Kennedy and Carter was maybe theistic. Maybe even Ragan in a nonsensical half assed way, but Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Either Bush, Clinton, Obama and Trump? Nah. I don't know if autotheism is a concept but political bullshit is.
-
I would suspect that, in both cases, the true number is higher. I seriously doubt, for example, that Donald Trump is a theist (unless autotheism is a concept).
It's noticeable that the US has a lot less high profile politicians in it as well.
-
Then hell from Dante and Milton, Christmas through Dickens, the Rapture through Darby. You might even start looking around and discover that the writers of the Bible weren't monotheistic or polytheistic but henotheistic and that the Bible doesn't imply that the earth is flat, or created in six literal days six thousand years ago, snakes, donkeys and bushes talk, etc. Pretty much the vast majority of theism, which atheism is hinged upon, is nonsense. That's truth.
Why on earth do you think atheism is "hinged upon" this particular idea of theism?
-
Why on earth do you think atheism is "hinged upon" this particular idea of theism?
How could something be the antithesis of something without being dependent or be contingent upon it? Without theism would there be atheism?
-
How could something be the antithesis of something without being dependent or be contingent upon it? Without theism would there be atheism?
it isn't the antithesis.
-
it isn't the antithesis.
Why not?
-
Why not?
Because a lack of belief in something applies you have never heard of something.
-
How could something be the antithesis of something without being dependent or be contingent upon it?
Atheism isn't the antithesis of theism, let alone one particular type of theism (which is what you implied).
Without theism would there be atheism?
Yes.
If I were to make up some fantastical story about something or other (let's call it X) but gave you no reason at all to take it seriously, then (if you were being rational) you'd be an a-Xist until and unless I gave you some such reason.
-
Because a lack of belief in something applies you have never heard of something.
It seems that would be confusing lack of belief with ignorance. One either believes or they don't. A decision either way requires an intellectual choice.
-
It seems that would be confusing lack of belief with ignorance. One either believes or they don't. A decision either way requires an intellectual choice.
No, it seems you are ignoring the default position. It is not a choice either way. Atheism includes the lack of belief.
-
Hi TS,
In the summer of 332 BCE Alexander the Great was conquering the world. Two hundred years prior to that the Bible foretold his conquest and when he got to the gates of Jerusalem they welcomed him, showed him the prophecy and submitted. Greek influence was running rampant behind the wake of Alexander. For example they built a gymnasium where games were played that were intertwined with Greek mythology. Babylonian teachings began to influence Jewish thinking through Greek philosophy which had long adopted them.
Oh dear. You’re not seriously claiming the Bible to be prophetic are you? Seriously though?
You’re new here so let’s take this a step at a time. To be prophetic – ie, actually to foretell the future – any text would need to satisfy various conditions. They include:
1. Non-inevitability. “A great city will fall” isn’t a prophecy – many cities will “fall” given enough time.
2. Precision. “A terrible plague will occur” - which plague? The bubonic plague? Spanish Flu? Covid-19? Where? There’s something called the narrative fallacy – essentially we look at what happened, and then retro-fit it to an earlier story and thereby think to have been prophesied. It’s just poor reasoning.
3. Consistency. This is called the problem of silent evidence. If I predict 100 things and one of them happens but 99 don’t, does that mean I have the power of prophecy? Why not? Short answer – you have to take into account the Bible's misses as well as the hits if you want to claim prophecies.
4. Context. Biblical "prophecies" concern only phenomena that would have been known, a least conceptually, to the authors. Why no prophecies about ipods or MRI scanners?
There are more basic tests in reason than these, but you get the idea. Show me something in the Bible that’s a prophecy in a logically sound way and then we’ll have something to discuss. Until then though…
Reading the Bible, you might pick up on the fact that the soul isn't an immortal part of the person that lives on, but the blood and life of any breathing creature which would lead you to discover Socrates influence changed the interpretation of the Bible. The Trinity from Plato. Then Constantine the Great's similar effect on Christianity in 325 CE introduced the pagan cross and reintroduced all of those old Babylonian teachings through the same Greek philosophy.
All very lovely if you like that kind of thing no doubt, but what you were actually asked was how a "real understanding of the Bible" tell you anything about the truth or otherwise of its fundamental claims. If the Biblical authors assert there to be such a thing as a “soul” no amount of further expiation about this supposed soul will tell you anything about the veracity or otherwise of the initial clam of its existence at all.
Then hell from Dante and Milton, Christmas through Dickens, the Rapture through Darby. You might even start looking around and discover that the writers of the Bible weren't monotheistic or polytheistic but henotheistic and that the Bible doesn't imply that the earth is flat, or created in six literal days six thousand years ago, snakes, donkeys and bushes talk, etc. Pretty much the vast majority of theism, which atheism is hinged upon, is nonsense. That's truth.
No it isn’t. Atheism doesn’t “hinge on” that at all. Sure it’s trivially easy to falsify the Bible literalists, but unless the more nuanced, allegorical theists can produce sound arguments to justify their beliefs then atheism is the only rational response to their claims too.
He explains it pretty well in the video I linked to. What he means is that mythology, which he lumps Judeo-Christian teachings in with, not surprisingly given the answer to your first question, is the very foundation of Western culture. I would broaden that to include the entire world but we would have to go back to Dumuzi (Tammuz Ezekiel 8) otherwise known as Nimrod, founder of Babylon, but that would be a somewhat distracting excursion.
Then you need to tell us what you mean by “mythology”. What mythology is it that you think post-Enlightenment thinking rests on exactly? The closest I can get to what JP is actually saying (though he won’t say so) is that all understandings rest on axioms (which is true), and therefore that all understandings at some level have equivalence (which isn’t). If you think he’s trying to say something else though, perhaps you could explain it in plain terms.
I wasn't but I could have been. If atheism is the antithesis of theism…
It isn’t. Theism is a set of beliefs asserted to be facts; a-theism is the response that there’s no good reason to treat them as facts. Opposing them as thesis/antithesis is called a category error. If on the other hand atheism required the statement “there is no god” you’d be on firmer ground. It doesn't though.
…then what is theism? The antithesis of a thing would incorporate a considerable portion of that which it is the antithesis of. Theism is no more wrong than atheism, that wasn't the point.
That’s a lot of wrong in a few words – see above.
The point is what were you indoctrinated for? Educated. Instructed.
Does one need to be indoctrinated to conclude that reason provides more robust epistemology than non-reason, or just to be alive and experiencing?
The Hebrew and Greek word for spirit means an invisible active force that produces results. For example they can be translated as wind, breath, mental inclination or highly intelligent beings. The English words pneumatic and pneumonia come from the Greek word pneuma, translated spirit, wind, etc. So spirituality isn't necessarily supernatural or religious or involving a deity. Gods. It's the things that form us. Tradition, culture, art, music, nature, religion, everything. Fashion, sports, et cetera.
But in a theistic context it very much entails supernaturalism, gods etc. You’re just hiding behind the ambiguity in the term "spiritual" here. I have “faith” (colloquial sense) that my car will start in the morning. I have no “faith” (religious sense) that Jesus will stop me from crashing it. See? Same word, very different meanings.
Militant is used in such a manner to imply a more aggressive support. Most atheists are apathetic. Militant atheists are the more outspoken, or concerned about the subject of theism vs. atheism. Really, I get your point. I myself hate terms like atheism, theism, militant - to me they are descriptive labels useful in conveying a general association but in themselves potentially limiting or misapplied. Let's just use the term "more outspoken atheists?"
Then you badly devalue the term “militant”. You may have seen a few days ago that a Muslim fundamentalist beheaded a French teacher for showing his pupils cartoons of Mohammed. That’s militant. Writing books on the other hand that falsify the arguments theists attempt to justify their beliefs (and then use as a platform to intrude into the public space) isn’t “militant” at all. Sometimes the choice of words matters – really matters – and the equivalence you’re attempting here doesn’t work.
-
No, it seems you are ignoring the default position. It is not a choice either way. Atheism includes the lack of belief.
Atheism requires a choice of disbelief, the default position is ignorance. You can't believe or not believe in something whose existence you are ignorant of.
-
Atheism requires a choice of disbelief, the default position is ignorance. You can't believe or not believe in something whose existence you are ignorant of.
Disagree. If I don't know of something i have no beluef in it. And your use of 'existence ' here illustrates the problem. If i 'know' of something's existence then I believe it exists.
-
TS,
Atheism requires a choice of disbelief, the default position is ignorance. You can't believe or not believe in something whose existence you are ignorant of.
It's non-belief, and yes you can. If your reasons for believing something are false, then I have no good reason to treat your beliefs seriously. What those beliefs happen to be is for this purpose neither here nor there. A bad argument for god and for leprechauns is still bad argument. Think of it as the difference between content and (justifying) method if that helps.
-
Disagree. If I don't know of something i have no beluef in it. And your use of 'existence ' here illustrates the problem. If i 'know' of something's existence then I believe it exists.
If atheism is lack in belief exclusively then technically it is the default position of ignorance, but an atheist doesn't lack in belief out of ignorance, an atheist has made an intellectual choice based upon either evidence, culture, tradition or familial association. The same as theists only with the opposite conclusion.
For example, I am almost completely ignorant of deism but that doesn't make me adeisth. Or adeism. Whatever. It makes me ignorant of deism. If I rejected deism and founded some countermovement that would require, ideally, at least a cursory knowledge of it.
-
Atheism requires a choice of disbelief, the default position is ignorance.
No, the default position is lack of belief until one is given a good reason to take something seriously. That's the same for any sort of proposition (a scientific hypothesis, a myth, a superstition, or a religion, anything).
A proposition is only as believable as the reasons you have to take it seriously.
-
It's non-belief, and yes you can. If your reasons for believing something are false, then I have no good reason to treat your beliefs seriously.
Which you can't reasonably do being ignorant of them. You believe my beliefs are false. That isn't non-belief. Non belief is agnostic.
What those beliefs happen to be is for this purpose neither here nor there.
Agreed.
A bad argument for god and for leprechauns is still bad argument. Think of it as the difference between content and (justifying) method if that helps.
No it doesn't. Here's the definition of god: anything or anyone attributed might that is greater than the might of the one attributing it or that is venerated. There are millions of gods. Atheism by definition is patently absurd. The term is sensible, the paradigm is sensible, the conclusion is sensible but the definition is nonsensical.
-
TS,
If atheism is lack in belief exclusively then technically it is the default position of ignorance,…
You’re not listening. No it isn’t. It’s the default position from a state of knowledge about about reasoning. At most it’s also indifference to whatever the content of the truth claims happen to be. Think of the Emperor’s New Clothes story.
…but an atheist doesn't lack in belief out of ignorance, an atheist has made an intellectual choice based upon either evidence, culture, tradition or familial association. The same as theists only with the opposite conclusion.
An atheist makes a choice based on reason – specifically, the conclusion that the arguments theists attempt to justify their beliefs are false.
For example, I am almost completely ignorant of deism but that doesn't make me adeisth. Or adeism. Whatever. It makes me ignorant of deism. If I rejected deism and founded some countermovement that would require, ideally, at least a cursory knowledge of it.
No. You may or may not find the arguments attempted to justify deism to be convincing. If you find them to be not convincing though, then you’re an a-deist no matter that you don't know what colour hat the deist claims his deity to wear. Moreover, you also don’t believe in all manner of things you’ve never heard of because you’ve been given no sound reason to do otherwise. A-theism and a-unicornism alike are just absences of belief, nothing more.
-
If atheism is lack in belief exclusively then technically it is the default position of ignorance, but an atheist doesn't lack in belief out of ignorance, an atheist has made an intellectual choice based upon either evidence, culture, tradition or familial association. The same as theists only with the opposite conclusion.
For example, I am almost completely ignorant of deism but that doesn't make me adeisth. Or adeism. Whatever. It makes me ignorant of deism. If I rejected deism and founded some countermovement that would require, ideally, at least a cursory knowledge of it.
I suspect your falling into the trap of taking theism far too seriously.
I think you'll find some atheists, such as this one, have listened to the arguments proposed for 'God', have concluded that these alleged arguments are no more than meaningless, fallacy-ridden white noise that, as such, requires no further serious consideration - which is why I'm also an a-fairyist.
-
If atheism is lack in belief exclusively then technically it is the default position of ignorance, but an atheist doesn't lack in belief out of ignorance, an atheist has made an intellectual choice based upon either evidence, culture, tradition or familial association. The same as theists only with the opposite conclusion.
You are talking as if there is only two choices. Humans have and do believe in thousands of different gods, most of which I know next to nothing about. Since I have been given no reason to take any of them seriously, I'm an atheist. Being an atheist is not specific to any one (or some) of them.
For example, I am almost completely ignorant of deism but that doesn't make me adeisth.
If you know nothing about it, then you cannot have a belief in it, so you are an adeist.
If I rejected deism and founded some countermovement...
Why would you need a counterargument? Perhaps you need to look up the philosophical burden of proof (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy))?
-
TS,
Which you can't reasonably do being ignorant of them. You believe my beliefs are false.
No. I "believe" your reasons for thinking them to be correct are false. What your beliefs happen to be is nether here nor there.
That isn't non-belief. Non belief is agnostic.
No it isn't. Non-belief is the absence of belief. Agnosticism concerns whether something is knowable at all.
I have no belief in your claims of fact because either:
1. I have examined your justifying arguments for them and found them to be false; or
2. I don’t know what your justifying arguments for your beliefs are, and so have no reason to accept them as true.
Agreed.
Good – so we can move the conversation to justifying arguments then, not to the content of the claims themselves. You do realise though that that’s most of theology dispensed with right?
No it doesn't. Here's the definition of god: anything or anyone attributed might that is greater than the might of the one attributing it or that is venerated. There are millions of gods. Atheism
? You’ll need to re-phrase that into something comprehensible I’m afraid.
-
Atheism isn't the antithesis of theism, let alone one particular type of theism (which is what you implied).
Yes.
If I were to make up some fantastical story about something or other (let's call it X) but gave you no reason at all to take it seriously, then (if you were being rational) you'd be an a-Xist until and unless I gave you some such reason.
I think it can be said that atheism exists and would have existed at the start of the human species since all babies are born with a tota lack of belief in any 'god .
-
? You’ll need to re-phrase that into something comprehensible I’m afraid.
I think what he is doing is using the word origin of 'God' as 'that which is invoked' If you wish to invoke or have more of 'love', 'good fortune', 'power' then you create a god of love or luck or power. There can be many Gods. When there is one God it usually possesses multiple attributes. I believe in Islam, Allah is said to have a hundred names. These names are attributes rather than different gods.
-
ekim,
These names are attributes rather than different gods.
But what about when the various claims about one god contradict each other? A god about whom everything can be said is also a god about whom nothing can be said. Moreover by the way the Christian god at least seems to think there are other gods. Why else would "He" make his first commandment "Thou shall have no other gods before me"?
-
I think it can be said that atheism exists and would have existed at the start of the human species since all babies are born with a tota lack of belief in any 'god .
I think babies are a really bad example. They don't really have the facility for lack of belief. In that sense they have a lack of belief in cars. And also tables are atheist.
-
ekim,
But what about when the various claims about one god contradict each other? A god about whom everything can be said is also a god about whom nothing can be said. Moreover by the way the Christian god at least seems to think there are other gods. Why else would "He" make his first commandment "Thou shall have no other gods before me"?
Well, I would suggest that arises from those who seek to exercise control and power over others e.g. the High Priest or politician who usurps the role of High Priest. Doctrine is changed to correspond to the new seat of power and with it the indoctrination of the masses. An example would be 'many gods' are replaced by the One True God. Another is sectarian division based upon alternative interpretations of religious scripture.
-
Atheist, the well known reference to being a non stamp collector is a good enough example of why people in general are not over keen on the use of the word atheist.
Disbeliever, why would anyone disbelieve in something/anything when there's no evidence that would or could support whatever the idea in the first place, particularly ideas such as god, gods or higher powers?
Where can any viable evidence be found that would support the god, gods or some form of higher power ideas that might convince people of these things, if there were any?
Some of the bible stories might be true, but who knows which ones?
That Jesus bloke may have existed but the magical, mystical and superstition based parts of that book, more than likely, will be confined to a shelf in the fiction section of the library for some time, unless of course?
ippy
-
As Canadian Jordan Peterson said of atheists like Harris and Dawkins ...
Interesting that people when attacking atheist so often say this, noting that it is always 'atheists like Harris and Dawkins' implying that they could have picked any number of atheists when in reality it is alway the same tiny number of atheists selected following 'atheists like ...'. So when anti-atheists say 'atheists like Harris and Dawkins' they actually mean Harris and Dawkins.
The point being that the anti-atheists struggle to get beyond their three or four bogey men, who aren't extreme, nor militant, nor fundamentalist in the manner that we might apply to religious extremists. They tend simply to be academics who specialise in debate and discourse just as academics from all sorts of fields do without being tarnished with the terms extreme, militant, or fundamentalist. Any number of mild mannered academic theologians are as extreme, militant, or fundamentalist as Dawkins or Harris.
But there is a further point - largely that atheists by and large tend to keep their lack of belief to themselves. In the UK about 1 in 4 people are atheist - so that's very fourth person on the train, every fourth person you work with etc etc. Yet I imagine most people would seriously struggle to pick those people out because it is unlikely they will tell you. Compare that to approx 1 in 20 people in the UK who are active christians - I bet we all know who those people are because they darn well make sure you know, sure as night follows day.
-
...Compare that to approx 1 in 20 people in the UK who are active christians - I bet we all know who those people are because they darn well make sure you know, sure as night follows day.
Evidence?
-
Evidence?
Well firstly experience, but I'm sure you know me better than just to base my views on anecdote so I've looked into this.
Just read a paper which clearly demonstrates that religious people, and in particular christians, are far more likely to self-disclose their religious (or non religious) identity on public forums, such as social media than non religious people (including atheists) are to reveal theirs. And this is on standard social media platforms which have nothing to do with religion.
Moreover religious people had a far greater propensity to consider religion to be a public matter rather than a private matter, partially explaining their greater propensity for self disclosure.
-
That isn't really an answer to your claim
-
I suspect your falling into the trap of taking theism far too seriously.
How so? Because I find that very difficult to believe.
I think you'll find some atheists, such as this one, have listened to the arguments proposed for 'God', have concluded that these alleged arguments are no more than meaningless, fallacy-ridden white noise that, as such, requires no further serious consideration - which is why I'm also an a-fairyist.
I hope I haven't responded to this. Excuse me if I have. I have a lot of posts to respond to. We're not arguing for or against the existence of God. We are arguing the definition of atheism. If atheism was defined as the disbelief or lack of belief in God I wouldn't have a problem with it. It's the or gods tacked on the end of the definition of atheism I find nonsensical.
For a variety of reasons. Among them, a god doesn't have to exist to be a god. A god can be a mortal man. A god can be anything or anyone.
-
You are talking as if there is only two choices. Humans have and do believe in thousands of different gods, most of which I know next to nothing about. Since I have been given no reason to take any of them seriously, I'm an atheist. Being an atheist is not specific to any one (or some) of them.
Take them seriously? Okay, but what does that have to do with atheism? I don't take most of the gods of theism seriously but I'm still a theist.
If you know nothing about it, then you cannot have a belief in it, so you are an adeist.
Hmm. Well, that's interesting. Theism is a general application to various concepts of specific gods. A Christian, a Jewish, a Hinduist.
Why would you need a counterargument? Perhaps you need to look up the philosophical burden of proof (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy))?
I've held to that burden by providing proof of, not only the existence of gods but also the erroneous definition of gods by the definition of atheism.
It's real easy . . . watch.
Here: Gods (https://www.google.com/search?q=define+gods&oq=define+gods&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j0i457j0j0i10j0l2j0i10l2.2567j1j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)
and . . .
Here: Atheism (https://www.google.com/search?q=define+atheism&oq=define+atheism&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j0l2j0i22i30l3j0i10i22i30j0i22i30.4415j1j9&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)
-
Well firstly experience, but I'm sure you know me better than just to base my views on anecdote so I've looked into this.
Just read a paper which clearly demonstrates that religious people, and in particular christians, are far more likely to self-disclose their religious (or non religious) identity on public forums, such as social media than non religious people (including atheists) are to reveal theirs. And this is on standard social media platforms which have nothing to do with religion.
Moreover religious people had a far greater propensity to consider religion to be a public matter rather than a private matter, partially explaining their greater propensity for self disclosure.
Good points - I agree with the fact that people, well, the ones I hear on radio for example, do add this 'I am a Christian' to what they say and, in my opinion, with a tone of self-righteousness; perhaps to give them a sort of free pass to an acceptance that what they are saying must be right.
-
Well firstly experience, but I'm sure you know me better than just to base my views on anecdote so I've looked into this.
Just read a paper which clearly demonstrates that religious people, and in particular christians, are far more likely to self-disclose their religious (or non religious) identity on public forums, such as social media than non religious people (including atheists) are to reveal theirs. And this is on standard social media platforms which have nothing to do with religion.
Moreover religious people had a far greater propensity to consider religion to be a public matter rather than a private matter, partially explaining their greater propensity for self disclosure.
Isn't this just the same thing about vegans? If you think something is important then you might well state it but that doesn't mean that anyone who does not state their belief does not have a belief. It also adds all apathetics to atheism.
-
Good points - I agree with the fact that people, well, the ones I hear on radio for example, do add this 'I am a Christian' to what they say and, in my opinion, with a tone of self-righteousness; perhaps to give them a sort of free pass to an acceptance that what they are saying must be right.
Anecdote is not data. Making up shite about people's motivation is only that.
-
I think what he is doing is using the word origin of 'God' as 'that which is invoked'
No, but that is an interesting interjection.
If you wish to invoke or have more of 'love', 'good fortune', 'power' then you create a god of love or luck or power. There can be many Gods. When there is one God it usually possesses multiple attributes. I believe in Islam, Allah is said to have a hundred names. These names are attributes rather than different gods.
I'm trying to explain the concept of god, deity. Translations such as Sanskrit, Proto-Germanic, Latin etc. may incorporate descriptive applications without explaining what the thing is. All examples of any god in any language incorporates the simple attribution of might and/or veneration. So in linguistic variations you might have to ask, why is the word God from pour, or invoke, or gleam, shining, or voice, etc. It all comes back to might / veneration.
The Japanese word kami, plural kami, is an object of worship in Shintō and other indigenous religions of Japan. The term kami is often translated as “god,” “lord,” or “deity,” but it also includes other forces of nature, both good and evil, which, because of their superiority or divinity, become objects of reverence and respect.
The word is, in my opinion, more accurately translated as spirit. The spirit's of ones dead ancestors inhabit object like mirrors, swords, mountains etc.
-
I think babies are a really bad example. They don't really have the facility for lack of belief. In that sense they have a lack of belief in cars. And also tables are atheist.
Thank you so much, but aren't you one who subscribes to the notion that atheism is the default position?
-
But what about when the various claims about one god contradict each other? A god about whom everything can be said is also a god about whom nothing can be said.
What? A god is like a man. There are gods and there are men. All gods don't have to be the same in any way other than might and veneration.
Moreover by the way the Christian god at least seems to think there are other gods. Why else would "He" make his first commandment "Thou shall have no other gods before me"?
Exactly.
This is kind of weird. It almost seems that you are all are beginning to get it. I stand corrected. Maybe atheists can comprehend the simple meaning of gods.
-
Well, I would suggest that arises from those who seek to exercise control and power over others e.g. the High Priest or politician who usurps the role of High Priest. Doctrine is changed to correspond to the new seat of power and with it the indoctrination of the masses. An example would be 'many gods' are replaced by the One True God. Another is sectarian division based upon alternative interpretations of religious scripture.
All of that is certainly plausible, but the early Jews and early Christians were henotheistic. Do not have any gods before me means no gods above or foremost in importance, one true god means the God most mighty, above all others. Jesus was a mighty god (ʼEl Gib·bohr′) but not equal to God almighty (ʼEl Shad·dai′ ). (Isaiah 6:9; Genesis 17:1)
-
Interesting that people when attacking atheist so often say this, noting that it is always 'atheists like Harris and Dawkins' implying that they could have picked any number of atheists when in reality it is alway the same tiny number of atheists selected following 'atheists like ...'. So when anti-atheists say 'atheists like Harris and Dawkins' they actually mean Harris and Dawkins.
Fair enough. This link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwi9Q9apHGI&feature=youtu.be&t=179) starts the video right when Peterson enters Harris and Dawkins into the discourse. Do you agree with his evaluation? Do atheists agree with what he attributes to Harris and Dawkins or not?
Was Nietzsche's observation on the death of God a negative or positive occurrence?
The point being that the anti-atheists struggle to get beyond their three or four bogey men, who aren't extreme, nor militant, nor fundamentalist in the manner that we might apply to religious extremists.
Hmmm . . .
They tend simply to be academics who specialise in debate and discourse just as academics from all sorts of fields do without being tarnished with the terms extreme, militant, or fundamentalist. Any number of mild mannered academic theologians are as extreme, militant, or fundamentalist as Dawkins or Harris.
That's actually an excellent point and astute observation with possibly some merit to it. I have to think about it, though, before I can make that determination for myself. I certainly see your point.
My mind immediately goes to Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton on a book tour a number of years ago. I had tremendous respect for Hitchens and absolute zero for Sharpton. Debate is just an artform. I've probably lost debates where I was right and won debates where I was wrong. Academics of any field usually subscribe to tradition. Extreme and militant just means outspoken and fundamentalist means literalists. Atheists interpretation of scripture is usually more literal than theists.
But there is a further point - largely that atheists by and large tend to keep their lack of belief to themselves. In the UK about 1 in 4 people are atheist - so that's very fourth person on the train, every fourth person you work with etc etc. Yet I imagine most people would seriously struggle to pick those people out because it is unlikely they will tell you. Compare that to approx 1 in 20 people in the UK who are active christians - I bet we all know who those people are because they darn well make sure you know, sure as night follows day.
Only 1 in 4 are atheists? I find that hard to believe. How many are apathetic? Not wanting to identify as either. I was an unbeliever most of my life. All of my friends and family have always been unbelievers with the exception of my mother who became a believer in her early 50s. None of them would want to identify as either atheist or theist. It's a sort of social commitment. That's why I use the term "militant" meaning outspoken atheist. None of the atheists I've ever personally known would want to make that commitment. If you know Christians without talking to them then it's probably because they seem out of the ordinary.
Christians don't evangelize. (source (https://www.google.com/search?q=Christians+don%27t+evangelize&oq=Christians+don%27t+evangelize&aqs=chrome..69i57.19297j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8))
-
Where can any viable evidence be found that would support the god, gods or some form of higher power ideas that might convince people of these things, if there were any?
Seriously? None if you limit them to a transmogrified sort of ignorance based upon tradition.
Some of the bible stories might be true, but who knows which ones?
I do for one. For example, from my website (http://daystarbible.epizy.com/hebrew/sab/contradictions/contradictions.php): "The translation of the Bible is fallible and our interpretation is fallible. There are spurious scriptures and copyist errors. It is also true that sometimes the Bible says something that isn't what it means. The Bible will often give an account from the perspective of the observer. For example, the serpent didn't speak, but from Eve's perspective it did. (Genesis 3:1-6; 1 Timothy 2:14; Revelation 12:9; 20:2) The same with Balaam's donkey. (Numbers 22:22-28; 2 Peter 2:16) But also in the case where it appears that Samuel's "spirit" is summoned by the witch of En-dor, which contradicts what the Bible says happens to us when we die. Our "spirits" can't be summoned. (Ecclesiastes 9:5; Leviticus 20:6; 1 Samuel 16:14-23; 25:1; 1 Samuel 28:4-25) Also where the cowardly scouts sent out came back and said the Nephilim were in the land. The Nephilim all perished in the flood. (Genesis 6:1-4; Numbers 13:31-33; Numbers 14:36-37; 1 Peter 3:20) Sometimes the Bible even gives details of earlier events using references that didn't exist at that time. For example, at Genesis 3:24 the cherubs use a flaming blade of a sword to prevent Adam and Eve from returning. No such thing existed. At Genesis 2:10-14 the geographical details of Eden are given with reference to one river "to the East of Assyria" when Assyria certainly didn't exist then. But it was familiar to the reader who was reading it much later."
-
Well firstly experience, but I'm sure you know me better than just to base my views on anecdote so I've looked into this.
Just read a paper which clearly demonstrates that religious people, and in particular christians, are far more likely to self-disclose their religious (or non religious) identity on public forums, such as social media than non religious people (including atheists) are to reveal theirs. And this is on standard social media platforms which have nothing to do with religion.
Right, so why would either disclose their religious or non-religious identity there? Go to a Christian forum and 9 times out of ten it is predominantly atheist. Theists left Internet forums in the mid 2000s. There are only a few of us nondenominational sort of fringe elements hanging about. That has been my personal experience. How old was this "paper?"
Moreover religious people had a far greater propensity to consider religion to be a public matter rather than a private matter, partially explaining their greater propensity for self disclosure.
Really? There is Christian nationalism. Christianity-affiliated religious nationalism. Christian nationalists primarily focus on internal politics, such as passing laws that reflect their view of Christianity and its role in political and social life. (Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_nationalism#:~:text=Christian%20nationalism%20is%20Christianity%2Daffiliated,in%20political%20and%20social%20life.)) Jesus said his followers would be no part of the world as he was no part of the world which Satan controls and which is prophetically going to be destroyed leaving the meek to inherit the earth and live forever upon it.
So, where do you draw the line with what constitutes Christian? Christendom? I don't think so.
-
Good points - I agree with the fact that people, well, the ones I hear on radio for example, do add this 'I am a Christian' to what they say and, in my opinion, with a tone of self-righteousness; perhaps to give them a sort of free pass to an acceptance that what they are saying must be right.
Close, I think. Christians labor under the illusion of moral superiority the way the professed atheists labor under an illusion of intellectual superiority.
-
A god can be a mortal man. A god can be anything or anyone.
You what?
Question - Do you qualify Pagans as theist or atheist?
)O(
-
You what?
Question - Do you qualify Pagans as theist or atheist?
That would depend upon whether or not they believed in gods. Of course many do. The valueless gods of the nations like Molech, Baal, Ashtoreth, Tammuz, Astarte et cetera.
Also, the word pagan only means outside of. The Roman soldiers found it difficult to recruit those living in rural areas. So did the Christians. So, to a Roman a Christian would have been pagan and to a Christian a Roman was likely pagan just by being outside of or apart from one another. Similarly heathen referred to people of the heath, or field. Heathen was a term of respect. Landowners, farmers. They gradually took on a derogatory connotation not unlike the term Barbarian which was just a repeating of the word bar. For example, the Greek barbaros, meaning stammering, babble, unintelligible speech. A simple distinguishing of non-Greeks from Greeks like Gentile meaning non-Jew. It wasn't an insult. Josephus identified himself as barbarian (Jewish Antiquities, XIV, 187 [x, 1]; Against Apion, I, 58 [11])
-
Atheism requires a choice of disbelief, the default position is ignorance. You can't believe or not believe in something whose existence you are ignorant of.
I don't think anyone can choose to believe something they don't believe, or vice versa. Theism is something people are drawn into, there is a concept of a step of faith and a journey into faith, and atheism is merely the default position for anyone who does not take that step and embark on that journey having looked and not found it sufficiently compelling or appealing at the outset.
-
I don't think anyone can choose to believe something they don't believe, or vice versa. Theism is something people are drawn into, there is a concept of a step of faith and a journey into faith, and atheism is merely the default position for anyone who does not take that step and embark on that journey having looked and not found it sufficiently compelling or appealing at the outset.
With the exception of the default position I agree completely. You can't choose to believe or disbelieve, but you can take a position of belief or disbelief. To take a position, whether informed or not, does require a choice. By looking and concluding the evidence is insufficiently compelling. Without embarking on that journey journey you haven't decided either way. The default position is ignorance until the conclusion of that journey when a decision is made. The decision of a position of belief or disbelief, lack of belief, may still be made in ignorance but the journey has concluded nonetheless.
Theism, a belief in at least one god, doesn't necessitate worship or acceptance. One may very well accept the fact that there is at least one god while rejecting that god as a god, but that would depend on the use of the word belief or faith. Believing God exists doesn't mean you believe God will or can do whatever God says he can do or that you are interested in whatever that may be. Theism just means believing in the existence of a god or gods.
I have faith, but the demons have knowledge and yet shudder.
Another point I like to bring to the attention of atheists is that the Latin term credit means belief, trust. You can literally move mountains with faith.
-
Fair enough. This link (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwi9Q9apHGI&feature=youtu.be&t=179) starts the video right when Peterson enters Harris and Dawkins into the discourse. Do you agree with his evaluation? Do atheists agree with what he attributes to Harris and Dawkins or not?
Given that I have had limited engagement with the views of Dawkins (the only one of his books I've read is The Blind Watchmaker - I've read none of his books on god/religion) and wouldn't really recognise Harris if I bumped into him in the street, I cannot really comment on Peterson's views on them in his video. I do note however that he falls into the camp of 'people like Dawkins and Harris' when he actually means 'Dawkins and Harris'.
Do atheists agree with what he attributes to Harris and Dawkins or not? - I have no idea, I can only speak for myself, I cannot speak for other atheists - we aren't a homogeneous block with identical views. We are all different, all that unites us is that we do not believe in god or gods.
Weird however that the people who seem most obsessed with 'people like Dawkins and Harris' tend to be theists who seem to think that there is some kind of army of protocol-millitant atheists who consider them to be their leaders and gurus and hang on their every word. Guess what - it isn't true.
-
Extreme and militant just means outspoken and fundamentalist means literalists. Atheists interpretation of scripture is usually more literal than theists.
Extreme and militant are terms used by opponents to portray people as having views outside the norm regardless of whether it is true. So militant atheist is a term used by theists to play the man rather than the ball - I doubt any prominent atheist would describe themselves in such a term.
And the use of the word militant is completely inappropriate for academics who debate, as it means someone who favours confrontational or violent methods in support of their aims - none of those people described by theists as militant atheists fit that description as far as I'm aware. Unless, of course, you consider writing a book or article or being a panel member on a debate as 'confrontational' in which case pretty well everyone with an opinion who voices that in a public manner is 'militant'.
Note the comparison with how christians describe their own - a christian who is robust in promoting their views and challenging those who disagree is often described as a 'muscular' christian - an atheist who does the same is a 'militant' atheist - the former conveys positive overtones, the latter negative ones.
-
No, but that is an interesting interjection.
I'm trying to explain the concept of god, deity. Translations such as Sanskrit, Proto-Germanic, Latin etc. may incorporate descriptive applications without explaining what the thing is. All examples of any god in any language incorporates the simple attribution of might and/or veneration. So in linguistic variations you might have to ask, why is the word God from pour, or invoke, or gleam, shining, or voice, etc. It all comes back to might / veneration.
The Japanese word kami, plural kami, is an object of worship in Shintō and other indigenous religions of Japan. The term kami is often translated as “god,” “lord,” or “deity,” but it also includes other forces of nature, both good and evil, which, because of their superiority or divinity, become objects of reverence and respect.
The word is, in my opinion, more accurately translated as spirit. The spirit's of ones dead ancestors inhabit object like mirrors, swords, mountains etc.
I would be more inclined to say that the God notion revolves around the 'religious' individual's desires and fears. If certain qualities or results are desired then gods or goddesses which represent them are invoked or worshipped. If there is a fear of withdrawal of certain qualities or a negation of results then those gods are placated e.g. the desire for Heaven and the fear of Hell.
I would say that 'spirit' is an analogical word used to convey the suggestion that like air it appears to be everywhere including within the human being. The Whole or Holy Spirit represents its totality.
-
All of that is certainly plausible, but the early Jews and early Christians were henotheistic. Do not have any gods before me means no gods above or foremost in importance, one true god means the God most mighty, above all others. Jesus was a mighty god (ʼEl Gib·bohr′) but not equal to God almighty (ʼEl Shad·dai′ ). (Isaiah 6:9; Genesis 17:1)
I would suggest that religious leaders who wished to control their nation and prevent its disintegration would include that insistence within their doctrine. To turn a carpenter's son into any form of god for worship would indicate to me the desire to create a separate power base e.g. Rome as opposed to Jerusalem.
-
Only 1 in 4 are atheists? I find that hard to believe. How many are apathetic?
Depending on how the question is asked you may get as many as 40% self-defining themselves as atheist in research surveys, or as few as 10%. So 25% is a pretty reasonable middle point.
There are, of course, plenty of people who are not religious but do not describe themselves as atheist. In the regular British Social Attitudes survey a little over 50% of the population say they have no religion. Of the rest the vast majority are not practicing even if they self define as having a religion which may reflect merely cultural heritage or upbringing. The practicing christian population in the UK is about 5%.
Going back to atheism - you can, of course define anyone who answers 'no' to the question 'do you believe in god' as atheist - in which case perhaps 60% or more are, but I'm largely taking a narrower definition of self declaration, and many of those who say they don't believe in god say they believe in a 'higher' power - while by strict definition they are atheist (as that is about god, not some ill-defined higher power) I'm not sure those people really classify as atheist.
-
Right, so why would either disclose their religious or non-religious identity there? Go to a Christian forum and 9 times out of ten it is predominantly atheist.
I'm not talking about religious forums, I'm talking about generic social media platforms - the paper in question looked at MySpace (see comment below) and Facebook. The study used a survey approach to understand the religious affiliation, and its importance, for its participants and also looked at their social media presence to determine whether or not they had self-disclosed or not that religious affiliation. The results found that religious people were far more likely to self disclose their religion on the social media platforms than non religious people, even if their posts were never linked to religion. So while they may have had no interest in talking about religion on social media they ensured that it was known that they were religious.
Theists left Internet forums in the mid 2000s. There are only a few of us nondenominational sort of fringe elements hanging about. That has been my personal experience.
Really?!? So no theists on Facebook, or Instagram etc etc.
How old was this "paper?"
This paper was from 2011 (hence MySpace!), but I've just read another one from 2018 with similar conclusion.
-
With the exception of the default position I agree completely. You can't choose to believe or disbelieve, but you can take a position of belief or disbelief. To take a position, whether informed or not, does require a choice. By looking and concluding the evidence is insufficiently compelling. Without embarking on that journey journey you haven't decided either way. The default position is ignorance until the conclusion of that journey when a decision is made. The decision of a position of belief or disbelief, lack of belief, may still be made in ignorance but the journey has concluded nonetheless.
The journeys we take in life don't really have a conclusion; we are always heading one way or another, responding to new encounters as we go. So, it follows, there is no position of perfect knowledge in which we can make fully informed choices, we always swim in a sea of uncertainty within which we try to use our best judgement. An atheist is such a person who remains unconvinced by theist claims albeit in a milieu of partial knowledge. With no change of direction. atheism remains his default position, a lack of belief; it is not the case that atheism is a positive choice driven by positive evidence in favour of it, such a situation would be logically incoherent.
-
Hi TS,
Oh dear. You’re not seriously claiming the Bible to be prophetic are you? Seriously though?
You’re new here so let’s take this a step at a time. To be prophetic – ie, actually to foretell the future – any text would need to satisfy various conditions.
Let me just interrupt you there. Prophecy doesn't indicate a foretelling of the future as such, as a fortune teller would deceive one into thinking were possible. The future doesn't exist. But that doesn't mean certain outcomes aren't foreseeable. When Ezekiel prophesied to the wind he simply expressed God's command to the wind. (Ezekiel 37:9-10) When Jesus was slapped at trial and told to prophecy who struck him they were asking him to reveal who had already done it (Luke 22:63-64) In other words, diviners and demons use deception in order to appear to magically see into the future while God, through divine revelation to his prophets, or holy spirit, reveals something that he will make sure happens or can see in advance the outcome of.
They include:
1. Non-inevitability. “A great city will fall” isn’t a prophecy – many cities will “fall” given enough time.
2. Precision. “A terrible plague will occur” - which plague? The bubonic plague? Spanish Flu? Covid-19? Where? There’s something called the narrative fallacy – essentially we look at what happened, and then retro-fit it to an earlier story and thereby think to have been prophesied. It’s just poor reasoning.
3. Consistency. This is called the problem of silent evidence. If I predict 100 things and one of them happens but 99 don’t, does that mean I have the power of prophecy? Why not? Short answer – you have to take into account the Bible's misses as well as the hits if you want to claim prophecies.
4. Context. Biblical "prophecies" concern only phenomena that would have been known, a least conceptually, to the authors. Why no prophecies about ipods or MRI scanners?
There are more basic tests in reason than these, but you get the idea. Show me something in the Bible that’s a prophecy in a logically sound way and then we’ll have something to discuss. Until then though…
Hmmm . . . how 'bout Cyrus? Babylon fell in 539 BCE. Roughly 193 years before she fell the Bible predicted it.
When the prophecy was made the Medes, often mentioned with the Persians, were a group of splintered tribes on the fringes of the Assyrian Empire.
Isaiah 13:1, 17 - The pronouncement against Babylon that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw in vision: "Here I am arousing against them the Medes, who account silver itself as nothing and who, as respects gold, take no delight in it."
Isaiah 43:14; 44:28; 45:1 - This is what Jehovah has said, the Repurchaser of you people, the Holy One of Israel: "For your sakes I will send to Babylon and cause the bars of the prisons to come down, and the Chaldeans in the ships with whining cries on their part. the One saying of Cyrus, 'He is my shepherd, and all that I delight in he will completely carry out'; even in [my] saying of Jerusalem, 'She will be rebuilt,' and of the temple, 'You will have your foundation laid.'" This is what Jehovah has said to his anointed one, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have taken hold of, to subdue before him nations, so that I may ungird even the hips of kings; to open before him the two-leaved doors, so that even the gates will not be shut:
Jeremiah 51:11-12 - "Polish the arrows. Fill the circular shields, O men. Jehovah has aroused the spirit of the kings of the Medes, because it is against Babylon that his idea is, in order to bring her to ruin. For it is the vengeance of Jehovah, the vengeance for his temple. Against the walls of Babylon lift up a signal. Make strong the watch. Post the watchmen. Make ready those lying in ambush. For Jehovah both has formed the idea and will certainly do what he has spoken against the inhabitants of Babylon."
Cyrus approached the walls of Babylon. According to Xenophon, Cyropaedia, VII, vss. 7, 13 Babylon wasn't concerned with the Medes. They believed they had provisions for more than twenty years. Cyrus didn't see how it would be possible to storm those walls. Herodotus wrote that they were 300 feet tall. Cyrus and the Chaldeans weren't aware of the prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah.
Isaiah 44:24, 27-28 - This is what Jehovah has said, your Repurchaser and the Former of you from the belly: “I, Jehovah, am doing everything, stretching out the heavens by myself, laying out the earth. Who was with me? the One saying to the watery deep, 'Be evaporated; and all your rivers I shall dry up'; the One saying of Cyrus, 'He is my shepherd, and all that I delight in he will completely carry out'; even in [my] saying of Jerusalem, 'She will be rebuilt,' and of the temple, 'You will have your foundation laid.'"
Jeremiah 51:57 - "And I will make her princes and her wise ones, her governors and her deputy rulers and her mighty men drunk, and they must sleep an indefinitely lasting sleep, from which they will not wake up," is the utterance of the King, whose name is Jehovah of armies.
Cyropædia, VII, vss. 15-16 reported that Cyrus found out there was a festival in Babylon when all of her citizens were usually drinking and reveling all night long. During that time his men opened up the heads of the trenches at the river so that it's bed traveling through the city became easily passible.
They entered the city through the river gates encountering very little resistance, just as Isaiah 45:1 and Jeremiah 51:31 had foretold.
All very lovely if you like that kind of thing no doubt, but what you were actually asked was how a "real understanding of the Bible" tell you anything about the truth or otherwise of its fundamental claims. If the Biblical authors assert there to be such a thing as a “soul” no amount of further expiation about this supposed soul will tell you anything about the veracity or otherwise of the initial clam of its existence at all.
Why not?
Atheism doesn’t “hinge on” that at all. Sure it’s trivially easy to falsify the Bible literalists, but unless the more nuanced, allegorical theists can produce sound arguments to justify their beliefs then atheism is the only rational response to their claims too.
It can't even address the simple subject of deity. It has no idea what it denies the existence of. That's rational? I don't think so. Atheism is an uninformed response to tradition.
Then you need to tell us what you mean by “mythology”. What mythology is it that you think post-Enlightenment thinking rests on exactly? The closest I can get to what JP is actually saying (though he won’t say so) is that all understandings rest on axioms (which is true), and therefore that all understandings at some level have equivalence (which isn’t). If you think he’s trying to say something else though, perhaps you could explain it in plain terms.
I already have. There's a transcendent morality. The ethic that drives our culture is predicated on the idea of God. You can't just take it away and expect the culture to remain intact without any foundational support.
-
What? A god is like a man. There are gods and there are men. All gods don't have to be the same in any way other than might and veneration.
Exactly.
This is kind of weird. It almost seems that you are all are beginning to get it. I stand corrected. Maybe atheists can comprehend the simple meaning of gods.
T S, try Sam Harris's description of the person that has a diamond the size of a fridge buried somewhere in their garden, should be easy enough to find, it's on YouTube somewhere, it says so much about people that have beliefs in the various religions.
Atheist isn't that accurate a name for people that see no sensible reason to think there is such a thing as a god, nor is it that bothersome a name either, even so, why would so called atheists disbelieve in god or gods when there is no evidential reason to think there is any such thing in the first place?
ippy.
-
It can't even address the simple subject of deity. It has no idea what it denies the existence of. That's rational? I don't think so. Atheism is an uninformed response to tradition.
Total nonsense. I have not found a definition of 'deity' that firstly makes sense and secondly has some sound argument or supporting evidence to back up the idea that it actually exists, therefore the rational response is to not have a belief in any of the deity concepts I have so far encountered. That is atheism.
-
Seriously? None if you limit them to a transmogrified sort of ignorance based upon tradition.
website (http://daystarbible.epizy.com/hebrew/sab/contradictions/contradictions.php): "The translation of the Bible is fallible and our interpretation is fallible. There are spurious scriptures and copyist errors. It is also true that sometimes the Bible says something that isn't what it means. The Bible will often give an account from the perspective of the observer. For example, the serpent didn't speak, but from Eve's perspective it did. (Genesis 3:1-6; 1 Timothy 2:14; Revelation 12:9; 20:2) The same with Balaam's donkey. (Numbers 22:22-28; 2 Peter 2:16) But also in the case where it appears that Samuel's "spirit" is summoned by the witch of En-dor, which contradicts what the Bible says happens to us when we die. Our "spirits" can't be summoned. (Ecclesiastes 9:5; Leviticus 20:6; 1 Samuel 16:14-23; 25:1; 1 Samuel 28:4-25) Also where the cowardly scouts sent out came back and said the Nephilim were in the land. The Nephilim all perished in the flood. (Genesis 6:1-4; Numbers 13:31-33; Numbers 14:36-37; 1 Peter 3:20) Sometimes the Bible even gives details of earlier events using references that didn't exist at that time. For example, at Genesis 3:24 the cherubs use a flaming blade of a sword to prevent Adam and Eve from returning. No such thing existed. At Genesis 2:10-14 the geographical details of Eden are given with reference to one river "to the East of Assyria" when Assyria certainly didn't exist then. But it was familiar to the reader who was reading it much later."
I S, where I wrote, Some of the bible stories might be true, but who knows which ones?
In this post of yours you have written, I do for one!
You seem to have missed sending the accompanying viable evidence that supports this knowledge you say you have I suppose the atheists will have to take it that you're also world famous, pending the evidence of course, then supposedly all of the atheists will have to be bowing touching the forelock etc to you as we then have to set about starting to say our prayers.
No evidence then?
ippy.
P S I note Nicolas Marks seems to think the bible proves the bible as well.
-
There's a transcendent morality.
Given your fondness for using terms to suit yourself, what exactly do you mean by "transcendent morality"?
The ethic that drives our culture is predicated on the idea of God.
Or not: other ethical approaches are available.
You can't just take it away and expect the culture to remain intact without any foundational support.
Which sounds like our old friend the argumentum ad consequentiam: you theist chappies do love your fallacies.
-
TS,
Let me just interrupt you there. Prophecy doesn't indicate a foretelling of the future as such, as a fortune teller would deceive one into thinking were possible. The future doesn't exist.
Er, yes it does. That’s what the word means. If not, “it will likely get dark tonight” as also a “prophecy” in your taxonomy - in which case the words has lost all it’s real import.
But that doesn't mean certain outcomes aren't foreseeable.
Like predicting darkness to come at night time? I know. As Stevie Nicks tells us, thunder only happens when it’s raining…
When Ezekiel prophesied to the wind he simply expressed God's command to the wind. (Ezekiel 37:9-10) When Jesus was slapped at trial and told to prophecy who struck him they were asking him to reveal who had already done it (Luke 22:63-64) In other words, diviners and demons use deception in order to appear to magically see into the future while God, through divine revelation to his prophets, or holy spirit, reveals something that he will make sure happens or can see in advance the outcome of.
“diviners and demons” eh? Wellll… (steps away veeery slooowly at this stage…). Not sure whether you care much, but you’re committing a fallacy here called reification. You’re concretising claims like “god” as if you’d already demonstrated their existence. You haven’t though. That’s the point.
Hmmm . . . how 'bout Cyrus? Babylon fell in 539 BCE. Roughly 193 years before she fell the Bible predicted it.
When the prophecy was made the Medes, often mentioned with the Persians, were a group of splintered tribes on the fringes of the Assyrian Empire.
Isaiah 13:1, 17 - The pronouncement against Babylon that Isaiah the son of Amoz saw in vision: "Here I am arousing against them the Medes, who account silver itself as nothing and who, as respects gold, take no delight in it."
Isaiah 43:14; 44:28; 45:1 - This is what Jehovah has said, the Repurchaser of you people, the Holy One of Israel: "For your sakes I will send to Babylon and cause the bars of the prisons to come down, and the Chaldeans in the ships with whining cries on their part. the One saying of Cyrus, 'He is my shepherd, and all that I delight in he will completely carry out'; even in [my] saying of Jerusalem, 'She will be rebuilt,' and of the temple, 'You will have your foundation laid.'" This is what Jehovah has said to his anointed one, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have taken hold of, to subdue before him nations, so that I may ungird even the hips of kings; to open before him the two-leaved doors, so that even the gates will not be shut:
Jeremiah 51:11-12 - "Polish the arrows. Fill the circular shields, O men. Jehovah has aroused the spirit of the kings of the Medes, because it is against Babylon that his idea is, in order to bring her to ruin. For it is the vengeance of Jehovah, the vengeance for his temple. Against the walls of Babylon lift up a signal. Make strong the watch. Post the watchmen. Make ready those lying in ambush. For Jehovah both has formed the idea and will certainly do what he has spoken against the inhabitants of Babylon."
Cyrus approached the walls of Babylon. According to Xenophon, Cyropaedia, VII, vss. 7, 13 Babylon wasn't concerned with the Medes. They believed they had provisions for more than twenty years. Cyrus didn't see how it would be possible to storm those walls. Herodotus wrote that they were 300 feet tall. Cyrus and the Chaldeans weren't aware of the prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah.
Isaiah 44:24, 27-28 - This is what Jehovah has said, your Repurchaser and the Former of you from the belly: “I, Jehovah, am doing everything, stretching out the heavens by myself, laying out the earth. Who was with me? the One saying to the watery deep, 'Be evaporated; and all your rivers I shall dry up'; the One saying of Cyrus, 'He is my shepherd, and all that I delight in he will completely carry out'; even in [my] saying of Jerusalem, 'She will be rebuilt,' and of the temple, 'You will have your foundation laid.'"
Jeremiah 51:57 - "And I will make her princes and her wise ones, her governors and her deputy rulers and her mighty men drunk, and they must sleep an indefinitely lasting sleep, from which they will not wake up," is the utterance of the King, whose name is Jehovah of armies.
Cyropædia, VII, vss. 15-16 reported that Cyrus found out there was a festival in Babylon when all of her citizens were usually drinking and reveling all night long. During that time his men opened up the heads of the trenches at the river so that it's bed traveling through the city became easily passible.
They entered the city through the river gates encountering very little resistance, just as Isaiah 45:1 and Jeremiah 51:31 had foretold.
Very nice. So now all you have to do is to show that any of these supposed prophecies satisfy the basic rules of reasoning that I set out for you. And here’s the kicker – even if you could do that, you’d still be left with the problem of showing the accounts not to have been doctored or mis-translated later on so as to retrofit them to the narrative you find most appealing.
Good luck with that.
Oh, and you might pause to notice too that the “predictions” were very much known, localised phenomena (ships, shields, river gates etc) and so readily guessable. If a god really wanted to flex his prophesying muscles such that the non-credulous would believe it millennia later, why no references to, say, penicillin or the space shuttle?
Why not?
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Courtier%27s_Reply
It can't even address the simple subject of deity. It has no idea what it denies the existence of. That's rational? I don't think so. Atheism is an uninformed response to tradition.
Oh dear. Could you at least try to grasp what’s being said here instead of falling into the same mistakes again? Atheism doesn’t need to know about a deity to be atheism. A-leprechaunism doesn’t need to know about leprechauns to be a-leprechaunism. All these position need to know is whether or not the arguments tried to justify the beliefs god/leprechauns are sound.
If you could grasp this rather than keep mis-characterising atheism to suit your purposes you’ll have made some progress.
I already have. There's a transcendent morality.
Is there? Where?
The ethic that drives our culture is predicated on the idea of God.
What “ethic”, and why do you think that? Have you considered that evolution might just provide a more rational, investigable and verifiable explanation?
You can't just take it away…
Surely the a priori problem here is that you can’t just add it with no attempt even to justify the unqualified claim no?
…and expect the culture to remain intact without any foundational support.
Except there’s no evidence that societies collapse when they lose their religiosity – to the contrary, it’s the more secular countries that seem to have better welfare standards, greater longevity, fewer teenage pregnancies, better literacy rates etc. Go figure eh?
-
bluehillside #70
Reading through since the TS prophecy post, I've been thinking of how to point out that to accept, seemingly unquestioningly, that a prophecy is in the Bible about something that happened one hundred years later makes no sense at all, but your post has covered all that I am pleased to say!
-
Given that I have had limited engagement with the views of Dawkins (the only one of his books I've read is The Blind Watchmaker - I've read none of his books on god/religion) and wouldn't really recognise Harris if I bumped into him in the street, I cannot really comment on Peterson's views on them in his video. I do note however that he falls into the camp of 'people like Dawkins and Harris' when he actually means 'Dawkins and Harris'.
Do atheists agree with what he attributes to Harris and Dawkins or not? - I have no idea, I can only speak for myself, I cannot speak for other atheists - we aren't a homogeneous block with identical views. We are all different, all that unites us is that we do not believe in god or gods.
Weird however that the people who seem most obsessed with 'people like Dawkins and Harris' tend to be theists who seem to think that there is some kind of army of protocol-millitant atheists who consider them to be their leaders and gurus and hang on their every word. Guess what - it isn't true.
You sound like an ideologue to me, but who among us, including myself, isn't? What we have to do is attempt, as much is possible, to guard ourselves from not listening to those who criticize us. That's why I'm here. When someone like Peterson publicly criticizes people like Harris and Dawkins by lumping a common mentality together that's a fair criticism. Someone here on this forum did the same with me and this Vlad who I don't know and that was fine with me. The criticism was that we repeat our argument, which is silly. Of course we do.
-
The journeys we take in life don't really have a conclusion; we are always heading one way or another, responding to new encounters as we go.
Well put and I agree. What I meant by conclusion is a decision being made along that journey. I should have clarified.
So, it follows, there is no position of perfect knowledge in which we can make fully informed choices, we always swim in a sea of uncertainty within which we try to use our best judgement. An atheist is such a person who remains unconvinced by theist claims albeit in a milieu of partial knowledge. With no change of direction. atheism remains his default position, a lack of belief; it is not the case that atheism is a positive choice driven by positive evidence in favour of it, such a situation would be logically incoherent.
I maintain that the default is ignorance, not atheism. You aren't born atheist you aren't atheist or theist until you make a choice based upon the evidence, whatever that may be. It may be that you were born in an environment that is either theist or atheist. Traditional or cultural.
-
Well put and I agree. What I meant by conclusion is a decision being made along that journey. I should have clarified.
I maintain that the default is ignorance, not atheism. You aren't born atheist you aren't atheist or theist until you make a choice based upon the evidence, whatever that may be. It may be that you were born in an environment that is either theist or atheist. Traditional or cultural.
I don't think 'choice' is the appropriate word. I cannot 'choose' to find something plausible if I find it implausible, It is not a choice, it is more a realisation, and we have many moments of realisation, some small, some more profound, as we go along. Being atheist is not a choice; for me the word merely captures the fact of a null change in my position having considered theist claims and not been convinced by them.
-
T S, try Sam Harris's description of the person that has a diamond the size of a fridge buried somewhere in their garden, should be easy enough to find, it's on YouTube somewhere, it says so much about people that have beliefs in the various religions.
Okay. Sam Harris' Diamond In The Backyard Analogy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrDlVLbtKbQ)
I'm sorry. I don't get why so many people, even Peterson, see this man as an intellectual. He has never made sense to me. Maybe that's my personal perspective. Some years ago Steve Wells, owner of The Skeptic's Annotated Bible posted the announcement of Sam Harris' Reason Project on the SAB forum. They needed contributors on the site. So I went over there and it was an odd setup. A website like Wikipedia in the sense that they needed people to publish content. So I signed up and started publishing articles in response to the project which was really just the SAB in another form. For about 3 months I published several of these articles and then one day was unable to do so. I took it up on their forum and was told that they didn't want opposing opinions.
Well, why in the hell didn't you say that from the start? Every time I hear Harris talk I just think to myself. I don't get it. He's a doofus. Like Dawkins.
His analogy of the Diamond doesn't surprise me. It's obtuse. Because organized religion is obtuse. Christianity is moronic. So he goes after the Christian, happy in their blissful ignorance. Meanwhile what about the real issue? What is beyond Christianity? Look at Harris' Reason Project. All but gone. The SAB remains but the forum is dead. So dead Wells has removed it's link from the website. And Wells' Dwindling In Unbelief has pretty much run it's course. Wells posts once in a while.
The SAB is looking good. Polished up a bit after the latest book release. All of these Atheists making money off God. Promoting their propaganda, causing Christians to question their beliefs . . . is a good thing. It weeds out the unfaithful for one thing, but perhaps more importantly it exposes not only the pathological stupidity of Christianity but that of atheism as well! If the atheists are so overeducated that they can't do anything more than regurgitate the propaganda of morons like Harris and Dawkins they shall never rise above the stupidity of Christianity but rather float in its stagnant festering waters until someone, and I'm not naming names, pulls the plug. Yay!!! What a plan.
The atheists are digging up their back yards looking for pottery shards and bone fragments of mythological apish ancestors like Piltdown Man, Aegyptopithecus, Ramapithecus and Australopithecus completely oblivious to the fact that their own mythology, a failed metaphysical experiment, came from the same Greek philosophy as that of the Christians. Empedocles, Anaximander, Anaxagoras and Aristotle.
Atheist isn't that accurate a name for people that see no sensible reason to think there is such a thing as a god, nor is it that bothersome a name either, even so, why would so called atheists disbelieve in god or gods when there is no evidential reason to think there is any such thing in the first place?
For the obvious sociopolitical ideological possession. Wonderful tool in the hands of idiots. Wonderful. It's like those pest control substances that the pests themselves distribute in the nests of their squabbling mice people or el loco la cucaracha.
-
I would suggest that religious leaders who wished to control their nation and prevent its disintegration would include that insistence within their doctrine. To turn a carpenter's son into any form of god for worship would indicate to me the desire to create a separate power base e.g. Rome as opposed to Jerusalem.
The first prophecy of the Messiah preceded the mythological founding of Rome by what? Roughly 500 years? It isn't political.
-
many of those who say they don't believe in god say they believe in a 'higher' power - while by strict definition they are atheist (as that is about god, not some ill-defined higher power) I'm not sure those people really classify as atheist.
God is some ill-defined higher power.
-
God is some ill-defined higher power.
Not in the context of these surveys which often ask people to indicate the statement closest to their view, from the follwing:
A). I believe there is a god
B). I do not believe in a god but do believe there is some sort of spiritual greater power
C). I do not believe in any sort of god or spiritual greater power
Here is a good example
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/lifestyle/articles-reports/2015/02/12/third-british-adults-dont-believe-higher-power
From this particular survey you could argue that 33% of the population are atheist (answered C), or 53% who answered B or C.
-
TS,
This is quite a rant. Are you feeling ok?
I'm sorry. I don't get why so many people, even Peterson, see this man as an intellectual. He has never made sense to me.
Maybe that’s because he is an intellectual? He’s clearly very bright even you should acknowledge.
Maybe that's my personal perspective.
Yes it is. Why not try to justify it with some arguments though?
Some years ago Steve Wells, owner of The Skeptic's Annotated Bible posted the announcement of Sam Harris' Reason Project on the SAB forum. They needed contributors on the site. So I went over there and it was an odd setup. A website like Wikipedia in the sense that they needed people to publish content. So I signed up and started publishing articles in response to the project which was really just the SAB in another form. For about 3 months I published several of these articles and then one day was unable to do so. I took it up on their forum and was told that they didn't want opposing opinions.
Well, why in the hell didn't you say that from the start? Every time I hear Harris talk I just think to myself. I don't get it. He's a doofus. Like Dawkins.
Are you sure it was because they didn’t want opposing opinions, or could it be that – as you’ve shown here – it was because you just ignore the falsifications and rebuttals you’re given? See your attempted legerdermain of amalgamating different meaning of words into one for example.
His analogy of the Diamond doesn't surprise me. It's obtuse. Because organized religion is obtuse. Christianity is moronic. So he goes after the Christian, happy in their blissful ignorance. Meanwhile what about the real issue? What is beyond Christianity? Look at Harris' Reason Project. All but gone. The SAB remains but the forum is dead. So dead Wells has removed it's link from the website. And Wells' Dwindling In Unbelief has pretty much run it's course. Wells posts once in a while
So?
The SAB is looking good. Polished up a bit after the latest book release. All of these Atheists making money off God. Promoting their propaganda, causing Christians to question their beliefs . . . is a good thing. It weeds out the unfaithful for one thing, but perhaps more importantly it exposes not only the pathological stupidity of Christianity but that of atheism as well!
Presumably you won’t feel the need to explain why you think atheism is stupid, pathologically or otherwise? Perhaps if you start by grasping what the term actually entails you could give it a go?
If the atheists are so overeducated that they can't do anything more than regurgitate the propaganda of morons like Harris and Dawkins they shall never rise above the stupidity of Christianity but rather float in its stagnant festering waters until someone, and I'm not naming names, pulls the plug. Yay!!! What a plan.
NURSE!
The atheists are digging up their back yards looking for pottery shards and bone fragments of mythological apish ancestors like Piltdown Man…
You do know that Piltdown man was a famous hoax right?
…Aegyptopithecus, Ramapithecus and Australopithecus completely oblivious to the fact that their own mythology, a failed metaphysical experiment, came from the same Greek philosophy as that of the Christians. Empedocles, Anaximander, Anaxagoras and Aristotle.
You seem to think you have a cogent thought in your head, though there’s no telling what it might be. You’re not off to a good start so far, but why not make yourself a nice cup of tea, lose the green ink, wrap a wet towel round your head and try to set out in plain and comprehensible terms what you think this “failed metaphysical experiment” to be?
For the obvious sociopolitical ideological possession.
And for those of us working in English?
Wonderful tool in the hands of idiots. Wonderful. It's like those pest control substances that the pests themselves distribute in the nests of their squabbling mice people or loco la cucaracha.
What “wonderful tool” are you thinking of here – reason? Logic? What’s wrong with these things?
-
If the atheists are so overeducated that they can't do anything more than regurgitate the propaganda of morons like Harris and Dawkins ...
But they don't do they, or at the very least the vast, vast majority don't.
In my last post I indicated that either 33% or 53% of the population of the UK are atheist - beyond the fact that you (and I) probably have no idea who most of these people are because they are likely to keep their views to themselves as private matter - how many spend their time regurgitate the propaganda of morons like Harris and Dawkins - I suspect a tiny, tiny minority.
From my experience the people most likely to be obsessed by the propaganda of morons like Harris and Dawkins tend, by and large, to be theists who see these people as some kind of bogeymen.
Just as an example - I am an atheist, have been since 1989 - I've never read any of Dawkins 'god & religion' books and indeed probably read more of Dawkins today (as I was countering Gabriella's quote mining so had to read his entire TED talk) than I have ever done in the last 31 years as an atheist. And for completeness I don't think I have ever read anything by Harris.
So no regurgitation of propaganda going on here - I am perfectly capable of thinking for myself.
-
You seem to have missed sending the accompanying viable evidence that supports this knowledge you say you have.
What sort of tactic is asking for something one knows can't be provided because they won't accept it?
I aim to please, Master Ippy.
I suppose the atheists will have to take it that you're also world famous, pending the evidence of course, then supposedly all of the atheists will have to be bowing touching the forelock etc to you as we then have to set about starting to say our prayers.
This explains a lot, really. Someone treading so precariously on such a thick layer of permafrost cowering on the cusp of meteoric rise doesn't bode well, see if I don't!
-
TS,
What sort of tactic is asking for something one knows can't be provided because they won't accept it?
Quite. So why do you do it?
Here, prove me wrong: why not actually try to engage with the argument you've been given that snake oiling language itself is a bad tactic to try?
-
TS,
Quite. So why do you do it?
I've already told you. Because you don't want it. The only one to provide any evidence whatsoever since I arrived in the two threads I've posted is me.
Here, prove me wrong: why not actually try to engage with the argument you've been given that snake oiling language itself is a bad tactic to try?
Not too quick to catch on, are you? It the overwhelming response to the dictionary on the meaning of a word in question is to say that the meaning has been distorted by giving it's dictionary definition while no alternative is even suggested the discussion is over. Might as well ask the cat.
YOU tell me what a god is.
-
The only one to provide any evidence whatsoever since I arrived in the two threads I've posted is me.
Thanks, that made me laugh.
-
Not too quick to catch on, are you? It the overwhelming response to the dictionary on the meaning of a word in question is to say that the meaning has been distorted by giving it's dictionary definition while no alternative is even suggested the discussion is over.
False. The dictionary definition is fine, you've just refused to acknowledge the different senses of the word.
-
But they don't do they, or at the very least the vast, vast majority don't.
In my last post I indicated that either 33% or 53% of the population of the UK are atheist - beyond the fact that you (and I) probably have no idea who most of these people are because they are likely to keep their views to themselves as private matter - how many spend their time regurgitate the propaganda of morons like Harris and Dawkins - I suspect a tiny, tiny minority.
From my experience the people most likely to be obsessed by the propaganda of morons like Harris and Dawkins tend, by and large, to be theists who see these people as some kind of bogeymen.
Just as an example - I am an atheist, have been since 1989 - I've never read any of Dawkins 'god & religion' books and indeed probably read more of Dawkins today (as I was countering Gabriella's quote mining so had to read his entire TED talk) than I have ever done in the last 31 years as an atheist. And for completeness I don't think I have ever read anything by Harris.
So no regurgitation of propaganda going on here - I am perfectly capable of thinking for myself.
Except that having read the entire TED talk you still have not been able to show that the quotes have changed in their meaning once they are read in the context of the whole TED talk. You made an assumption that militant was being used in a pejorative way. You have not been able to show that Dawkins used militant in a pejorative way. I suggest you don't call something quote mining when you are unable to demonstrate it.
-
TS,
I've already told you. Because you don't want it.
Whoosh! Way to miss the point.
I was asking YOU why YOU won’t engage with the rebuttals YOU'RE given that undo YOU.
The only one to provide any evidence whatsoever since I arrived in the two threads I've posted is me.
That’s very funny. So far as I can tell, you’ve provided no evidence at all to justify whatever it is that you believe. In return for you evidential silence though, you’ve had:
1. Correction of the various mischaracterisations of atheism you’ve tried;
2. The identification and explanations of the multiple logical fallacies you've committed; and
3.Arguments that show your snake oil cheating re lumping together the several meanings of the same words into one to be hopeless, none of which you’ve even tried to rebut.
So what evidence exactly do you think you’ve provided?
Not too quick to catch on, are you?
Are you familiar with the term “irony”? You should look it up.
It the overwhelming response to the dictionary on the meaning of a word in question is to say that the meaning has been distorted by giving it's dictionary definition while no alternative is even suggested the discussion is over. Might as well ask the cat.
Or stop lying. There is no “the” meaning. There are several meanings, each with fundamentally different epistemic characteristics. Perhaps if you stopped ignoring the problem you’ve given yourself you might begin at least start to dig yourself out of your hole?
YOU tell me what a god is.
I advised you a while back to try to grasp at least the basics of logic and reason. You should have listened to me rather than repeat the shifting of the burden of proof fallacy. I have no idea what YOU mean by “god” (other I suppose than the incoherent linguistic skip fire you’re trying of lumping all possible meanings into one) so I have no reason to think your belief is well-founded – whatever it is. If nonetheless you expect your beliefs to be taken seriously, that’s you problem though – not the atheists’.
Short version: your problem is not that you're wrong, it's that you're not even wrong.
Try again.
-
I advised you a while back to try to grasp at least the basics of logic and reason. You should have listened to me rather than repeat the shifting of the burden of proof fallacy. I have no idea what YOU mean by “god” (other I suppose than the incoherent linguistic skip fire you’re trying of lumping all possible meanings into one) so I have no reason to think your belief is well-founded – whatever it is. If nonetheless you expect your beliefs to be taken seriously, that’s you problem though – not the atheists’.
Short version: your problem is not that you're wrong, it's that you're not even wrong.
Try again.
I'll say it again. I've defined the word god, given you the meaning, examples, etymology. You've disagreed.
Your turn.
WHAT IS A GOD!?
Don't say anything else until you answer that. That means anyone.
-
TS,
I'll say it again. I've defined the word god, given you the meaning, examples, etymology. You've disagreed.
I'll say it again - no you haven’t. What you’ve actually done is to list its various meanings. You also let slip that your theism concerns the “supernatural” meaning, though you promptly denied it a few post later. So, why not just tell us which of the multiple meanings of the term you actually believe in and then explain why?
Why is this so difficult for you? What are you afraid of?
Your turn.
No, yours – as it consistently has been.
WHAT IS A GOD!?
Your god? I have no idea because you won’t tell us.
Why not?
Don't say anything else until you answer that. That means anyone.
Who put you in charge? Just repeating endlessly the shifting of the burden of proof fallacy doesn’t make it any less fallacious. It’s your claim – that means it’s your job to tell us what you mean by it.
Why won’t you?
-
TS,
I'll say it again - no you haven’t.
Oh, you missed it.
meaning: Anything or anyone attributed might or venerated
examples: Eric Clapton, Moses, Jesus, Jehovah, The Cross, Supernatural, natural, persons, places, things, anything.
etymology: Hebrew el from a root meaning mighty. Sanskrit, Proto German, Japanese, describing associated rituals. Pouring, anointed, voice,
-
TS,
Oh, you missed it.
meaning: Anything or anyone attributed might or venerated
examples: Eric Clapton, Moses, Jesus, Jehovah, The Cross, Supernatural, natural, persons, places, things, anything.
etymology: Hebrew el from a root meaning mighty. Sanskrit, Proto German, Japanese, describing associated rituals. Pouring, anointed, voice,
That’s not an it, it’s a them. Which one of them do you want to argue for – the supernatural one operating outwith the laws of nature defined (apparently) by its existence at all, or the material one defined (apparently) only by the way people happen to feel about it?
They’re epistemically fundamentally different claims – which one are you opting for?
It's your choice to make cowboy, not mine.
-
I'll say it again. I've defined the word god, given you the meaning, examples, etymology. You've disagreed.
Since your list of candidates to be considered 'God(s)' is a blatant category error then we can conclude that the term, as you use it, is meaningless since it can't be meaningful if everything that anyone subjectively regards as being admirable in some way meets your definition.
Your turn.
WHAT IS A GOD!?
No idea: as I noted above, you've already rendered the term meaningless and anyway the burden of proof here belongs to you 'God' enthusiasts. From what I've seen to date, all that is being offered by you guys is just white noise.
Don't say anything else until you answer that. That means anyone.
You don't get to close discussion down because you keep getting your arse handed back to you on a plate.
-
Thanks, that made me laugh.
It raised a small laugh for me too! TS does seem to have a somewhat over-inflated opinion of himself.
-
meaning: Anything or anyone attributed might or venerated
examples: Eric Clapton, Moses, Jesus, Jehovah, The Cross, Supernatural, natural, persons, places, things, anything.
etymology: Hebrew el from a root meaning mighty. Sanskrit, Proto German, Japanese, describing associated rituals. Pouring, anointed, voice,
Reference? You don't appear to have got that from one of the mainstream English dictionaries. If you look at Oxford (https://www.lexico.com/definition/god), Collins (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/god), Cambridge (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/god), Merriam-Webster (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god), and so on, there are different senses of the word, as understood by pretty much all English speakers, except for you, apparently.
You also missed out that gods can refer to the upper gallery of a theatre, perhaps people who believe in the structures of theatres are theists too, in your mind?
Nobody in their right mind who understand English thinks that calling people like Eric Clapton a god has anything to do with atheism or theism, get over it.
-
Reference? You don't appear to have got that from one of the mainstream English dictionaries. If you look at Oxford (https://www.lexico.com/definition/god), Collins (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/god), Cambridge (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/god), Merriam-Webster (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god), and so on, there are different senses of the word, as understood by pretty much all English speakers, except for you, apparently.
You also missed out that gods can refer to the upper gallery of a theatre, perhaps people who believe in the structures of theatres are theists too, in your mind?
Nobody in their right mind who understand English thinks that calling people like Eric Clapton a god has anything to do with atheism or theism, get over it.
Tell me what a God is. You're just repeating a non-argument from the start. You don't even know what a god is or you would tell us. None of you know what a god is.
The only thing that people calling Eric Clapton a god has to do with atheism is that atheist are ignorant of what it means.
God is a word. The sense doesn't change the word.
Atheism; disbelief or lack of belief in God or gods.
Not disbelief or lack of belief in God or gods in a certain sense.
You don't like the truth because it shows how wrong and stupid atheism is. You can't change the facts. You can't change the meaning. You can't change the sense. So change the stupid definition of atheism.
DUH!
-
Could the problem with this thread be nothing more than language?
Everyone on this Forum speaks, reads and writes in ENGLISH; Theoretical Sceptic speaks, reads and writes in AMERICAN ENGLISH!
These are, quite often, two entirely different languages.
-
Tell me what a God is. You're just repeating a non-argument from the start. You don't even know what a god is or you would tell us. None of you know what a god is.
Most generally the term refers to the deities of the various world religions (past and present). Some people have a more personal definition but the term itself is very flexible, which is why it's up to an individual theist to explain their own concept of 'god' and then justify why they think it exists.
You appear to want to conflate the colloquial meaning (that can apply to person) to dismiss atheism without actually justifying a credible theist position. Not only is that silly and childish, it's an attempt to shift the burden of proof.
It's theists who make the claims about god(s), so it's up to them to define what they believe in and justify it. If your claim is something like "I'm a theist and Eric Clapton is my god", them we can all shrug and go home. But you don't appear to have the intellectual courage to put forward what you actually believe and justify it, you just want to play daft word games to dismiss atheism.
The only thing that people calling Eric Clapton a god has to do with atheism is that atheist are ignorant of what it means.
God is a word. The sense doesn't change the word.
Of course the sense changes the meaning of the word, you used the fact yourself when you got all huffy about it and used "fucking" in a different sense to meaning sexual intercourse. If you don't understand that the context of a word can indicate a different sense and hence convey a different meaning, then you really do need to go back to school and learn basic English Language.
You don't like the truth because it shows how wrong and stupid atheism is.
On another forum, somebody started a thread about evidence for god and somebody posted that Eric Clapton was god and provided the evidence of a video clip - the thing is, he earned lots of "funny" tags because everybody understood it was a joke.
The person being stupid here is you.
-
Tell me what a God is. You're just repeating a non-argument from the start. You don't even know what a god is or you would tell us. None of you know what a god is.
Correct: it is a meaningless statement, as you've so ably demonstrated. So stop asking silly questions.
-
TS,
Tell me what a God is. You're just repeating a non-argument from the start. You don't even know what a god is or you would tell us. None of you know what a god is.
There’s no such thing as “what a god is”. There are however various and different definitions of what the term “god” means – ie, definitions (plural) of what the word god (singular) are (plural).
The only thing that people calling Eric Clapton a god has to do with atheism is that atheist are ignorant of what it means.
Did that make sense in your head when you typed it?
God is a word. The sense doesn't change the word.
But the word has several, fundamentally and qualitatively different “senses”. For some reason you won’t tell us which of them you’re referring to though.
Atheism; disbelief or lack of belief in God or gods.
Just the latter, but ok…
Not disbelief or lack of belief in God or gods in a certain sense.
Yes, absolutely lack of belief in a certain sense – the deistic/theistic sense in fact. If someone calls Clapton “god” or his cheesecake “divine” he’s just using language in a colloquial sense, and atheism has nothing to do with it. Thinking the same piece of cheesecake to be just so-so does not thereby make me an atheist.
You don't like the truth because it shows how wrong and stupid atheism is.
What truth? You haven’t provided any, or at least none that's relevant.
You can't change the facts.
Which facts?
You can't change the meaning.
It’s meanings (plural) and no-one’s trying to change them (plural). We’re just asking you which of the various meanings (plural) it is that you’re trying to defend. If you do think there to be a supernatural god, why not stop the snake oil linguistic abuse and tell us why?
You can't change the sense.
It’s senses (plural), and no-one’s trying to.
So change the stupid definition of atheism.
Why when it’s fine as it is? Atheism is the non-belief in the gods proposed by deists and theists. It has nothing to do with various other, colloquial uses of the term.
Clear now?
DUH!
Quite.
-
Okay. Sam Harris' Diamond In The Backyard Analogy (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrDlVLbtKbQ)
I'm sorry. I don't get why so many people, even Peterson, see this man as an intellectual. He has never made sense to me. Maybe that's my personal perspective. Some years ago Steve Wells, owner of The Skeptic's Annotated Bible posted the announcement of Sam Harris' Reason Project on the SAB forum. They needed contributors on the site. So I went over there and it was an odd setup. A website like Wikipedia in the sense that they needed people to publish content. So I signed up and started publishing articles in response to the project which was really just the SAB in another form. For about 3 months I published several of these articles and then one day was unable to do so. I took it up on their forum and was told that they didn't want opposing opinions.
Well, why in the hell didn't you say that from the start? Every time I hear Harris talk I just think to myself. I don't get it. He's a doofus. Like Dawkins.
His analogy of the Diamond doesn't surprise me. It's obtuse. Because organized religion is obtuse. Christianity is moronic. So he goes after the Christian, happy in their blissful ignorance. Meanwhile what about the real issue? What is beyond Christianity? Look at Harris' Reason Project. All but gone. The SAB remains but the forum is dead. So dead Wells has removed it's link from the website. And Wells' Dwindling In Unbelief has pretty much run it's course. Wells posts once in a while.
The SAB is looking good. Polished up a bit after the latest book release. All of these Atheists making money off God. Promoting their propaganda, causing Christians to question their beliefs . . . is a good thing. It weeds out the unfaithful for one thing, but perhaps more importantly it exposes not only the pathological stupidity of Christianity but that of atheism as well! If the atheists are so overeducated that they can't do anything more than regurgitate the propaganda of morons like Harris and Dawkins they shall never rise above the stupidity of Christianity but rather float in its stagnant festering waters until someone, and I'm not naming names, pulls the plug. Yay!!! What a plan.
The atheists are digging up their back yards looking for pottery shards and bone fragments of mythological apish ancestors like Piltdown Man, Aegyptopithecus, Ramapithecus and Australopithecus completely oblivious to the fact that their own mythology, a failed metaphysical experiment, came from the same Greek philosophy as that of the Christians. Empedocles, Anaximander, Anaxagoras and Aristotle.
For the obvious sociopolitical ideological possession. Wonderful tool in the hands of idiots. Wonderful. It's like those pest control substances that the pests themselves distribute in the nests of their squabbling mice people or el loco la cucaracha.
You could be worrying too much if you're one of those that think there is something more out there in the unknown sphere of our known universe, there certainly will be, sure there is, in the mean time like good old Douglas Addams says enjoy your garden without having to believe there are fairies at the bottom of it.
Suggestions that there is anything particularity deep or there's something that highly intellectual about claiming knowledge of this unnamed whatever, the lack of evidence shows we just don't know will do, there's no need to waffle away like this forum's Nicolas Marks, whatever is conveyed by whoever it'll still have little more content, punch or special meaning than one of Nicks posts.
ippy.
-
I'm just wondering whether TS has had many people reading and signing up to his forum and responding to his several topics.
-
I'm just wondering whether TS has had many people reading and signing up to his forum and responding to his several topics.
Just another Woo-ologist with a few more fancy words that have about as much meaning to them as the stuff that we get from all of the others.
ippy
-
Just another Woo-ologist with a few more fancy words that have about as much meaning to them as the stuff that we get from all of the others.
ippy
Why do I get the feeling that Spud or Alan Burns or another of that ilk has reincarnated himself as a Yank?
-
I'll say it again. I've defined the word god, given you the meaning, examples, etymology. You've disagreed.
Your turn.
WHAT IS A GOD!?
Don't say anything else until you answer that. That means anyone.
God is an electric kettle on the far side of the moon
-
Splashy,
God is an electric kettle on the far side of the moon
According to TS, provided you “venerate” that idea it probably is.
And if I don’t buy that presumably that makes me an atheist.
It’s that unhinged.
-
Splashy,
According to TS, provided you “venerate” that idea it probably is.
And if I don’t buy that presumably that makes me an atheist.
It’s that unhinged.
It is that . . . or it is him that . . . ?
)O(
-
God is an electric kettle on the far side of the moon
I'd say that first cup of tea in the morning is as near as you get to that imaginary feeling. (Any true Englishman).
ippy
-
Why do I get the feeling that Spud or Alan Burns or another of that ilk has reincarnated himself as a Yank?
I didn't know TS was an American but I have to say when you listen to that American phone in programme on You Tube Mat Dillahunty, well do I need say any more?
ippy.
-
Number of posts from TS much lower … is he disappearing already, I wonder?Perhaps he thinks we are not up to his particular standards! I wonder if, then, he awards himself a sort of victory … …
Perhaps he will post and let us know.
-
Number of posts from TS much lower … is he disappearing already, I wonder?Perhaps he thinks we are not up to his particular standards! I wonder if, then, he awards himself a sort of victory … …
Perhaps he will post and let us know.
Sure. And I apologize. I can't post as often as I like. As for you not being up to my particular standards, that isn't true at all. I think this is the best bunch of atheists as far as discussion goes that I've seen in a long time. No problem there, but I've always been of the opinion that atheists can not grasp the simple concept of god. I've tested this on many forums over a period of about 30 years. Y'all (as we Americans say) did surprise me at one point by almost getting it, but no surprises there.
Victory. No. I don't think like that. There is no victory to be had here. I'm past the ego posting. A good conversation is my only victory and I've had some here. I hope that you all have as well.
-
I didn't know TS was an American but I have to say when you listen to that American phone in programme on You Tube Mat Dillahunty, well do I need say any more?
ippy.
Yeah. Ya kinda do.
-
God is an electric kettle on the far side of the moon
God is anything you want it to be. God is anything or anyone that is . . . I'm not going to say it again. What puts you off is the Scribal superstitious removal of God's personal name. You think God is God, when God can be any god. Jehovah is a god. Jehovah is my God. Baal is a god. Satan is the god of the system of things, aka, the world. Moses was made God by God to Pharaoh and Aaron. God called the judges gods.
How do you explain all of this?
It is really very simple. Atheism is the disbelief or lack of belief in God (okay who is the God in question? The God of western culture, of the Bible, Jehovah) and gods. So who are the gods? There is no clarification there so your atheist ideology dictates to you that no gods can exist. That isn't true.
The only problem I have with atheism is that "or gods" at the end of the definition.
Who are the gods?
-
Why do I get the feeling that Spud or Alan Burns or another of that ilk has reincarnated himself as a Yank?
Because, though atheist will be quick to point out that atheists have nothing in common they are equally quick to point out the commonalities of their opposition. Not particularly bright, atheists, really.
You dismiss me easily with Spud or Alan Burns or Vlad. Tack that on me. Makes no difference to me. You are all just Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. That isn't a compliment.
So we're the same sort of idiots. You should have figured that out long ago.
-
Just another Woo-ologist with a few more fancy words that have about as much meaning to them as the stuff that we get from all of the others.
ippy
Still waiting for you to define god. Might as well ask the cat? C'mon. You can do it. Is there a child here I can ask? A JW child perhaps, of 4 or 5 years of age. Ask them. They can tell you. It's easy.
-
I'm just wondering whether TS has had many people reading and signing up to his forum and responding to his several topics.
[Laughs] No.
No one knows or cares about my website. It started out as a joke on another forum and it's only seriously been worked on for a couple months. I could take it down within the hour. Some people on another forum I was on thought that you had to spend money to get a site up. I showed them they were wrong. That's how it started. I've had dozens of them. I get bored and I take them down. I get bored and I put them up. Something to do.
Don't worry about the Christian propaganda in opposition to Atheist propaganda. There's room for everyone.
-
TS
Well, it is always interesting to read posts so I have read (listened to) the above.
It seems you and I have one thing in common - it is ever and always the discussion on any forum board which interests me, whether the topic concludes with some kkind of consensus or simply tails off.
-
Don't worry about the Christian propaganda in opposition to Atheist propaganda. There's room for everyone.
Atheist propaganda:
I don't believe in gods
That's it
-
Atheist propaganda:
I don't believe in gods
That's it
Yes, it would be interesting to see dsome other examples of this 'atheist propaganda', wouldn't it! Perhaps a link to some of it?
-
Atheist propaganda:
I don't believe in gods
That's it
Nonsense. If that were it you would have only 1 post.
-
Yes, it would be interesting to see dsome other examples of this 'atheist propaganda', wouldn't it! Perhaps a link to some of it?
What is a god? Do any exist?
-
What is a god? Do any exist?
I don't know but I've never seen a credible of a definition of a god (colloquial sense aside) together with a good reason to take it seriously, hence the lack of belief called "atheism".
This isn't rocket science.
-
TS,
Sure. And I apologize. I can't post as often as I like. As for you not being up to my particular standards, that isn't true at all. I think this is the best bunch of atheists as far as discussion goes that I've seen in a long time. No problem there, but I've always been of the opinion that atheists can not grasp the simple concept of god. I've tested this on many forums over a period of about 30 years. Y'all (as we Americans say) did surprise me at one point by almost getting it, but no surprises there.
Does it not occur to you that the problem here isn’t that atheists “cannot grasp the simple concept of god”, but rather that by smooshing together very different concepts of god you’ve made the claim of “a” concept incoherent?
Victory. No. I don't think like that. There is no victory to be had here. I'm past the ego posting. A good conversation is my only victory and I've had some here. I hope that you all have as well.
You could make it a better conversation if you at least acknowledged the objection to what you’re doing, and then try to address it.
God is anything you want it to be. God is anything or anyone that is . . . I'm not going to say it again. What puts you off is the Scribal superstitious removal of God's personal name. You think God is God, when God can be any god. Jehovah is a god. Jehovah is my God. Baal is a god. Satan is the god of the system of things, aka, the world. Moses was made God by God to Pharaoh and Aaron. God called the judges gods.
How do you explain all of this?
We don’t need to – it’s incoherent.
It is really very simple. Atheism is the disbelief or lack of belief…
Again, just the latter…
… in God (okay who is the God in question? The God of western culture, of the Bible, Jehovah) and gods.
No, just the gods proposed by deists and by theists - in both cases “supernatural”, and in the latter case the ones able at will supposedly to intervene in human affairs.
So who are the gods? There is no clarification there…
Yes there is - the gods of deists and of theists.
…so your atheist ideology…
There’s no such thing as "atheist ideology”. If you want to call adherence to reason and logic an “ideology” though, that applies to vastly more ”-isms” than to just atheism.
…dictates to you that no gods can exist.
No it doesn’t. What it “dictates” - all it dictates in fact - is that the atheist has been given no sound reasons to believe there to be gods.
That isn't true.
Straw men generally aren’t.
The only problem I have with atheism is that "or gods" at the end of the definition.
No, your actual problem with atheism is either that you don’t understand what it entails, or you choose to mischaracterise what it entails.
Who are the gods?
Any proposed by deists and by theists.
Because, though atheist will be quick to point out that atheists have nothing in common they are equally quick to point out the commonalities of their opposition. Not particularly bright, atheists, really.
Bright enough to be right though – ie, on logically firm ground.
You dismiss me easily with Spud or Alan Burns or Vlad. Tack that on me. Makes no difference to me. You are all just Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. That isn't a compliment.
I’d take it as one.
So we're the same sort of idiots. You should have figured that out long ago.
That “so” is a non sequitur – another fallacy.
Still waiting for you to define god. Might as well ask the cat? C'mon. You can do it. Is there a child here I can ask? A JW child perhaps, of 4 or 5 years of age. Ask them. They can tell you. It's easy.
Why are you waiting for other people to define for you whatever it is that you believe in?
Shifting of the burden of proof is another fallacy you know… or perhaps you don’t?
-
What is a god? Do any exist?
A god is an object of worship usually to satisfy a desire or nullify a fear. An example of one is Sol, the sun. Many people go on pilgrimages to sun soaked beaches on the Mediterranean coast where they prostrate themselves on towels to soak up its warmth. The Germans even place their prayer towels in position the night before.
-
I don't know but I've never seen a credible of a definition of a god (colloquial sense aside) together with a good reason to take it seriously, hence the lack of belief called "atheism".
This isn't rocket science.
No it isn't. Colloquially speaking gods exist. Colloquially speaking gods don't exist. Do gods exist? Yes. You have to be specific. Did the god Zeus literally exist? No. Does Jehovah literally exist. No one knows for sure. Some have faith that he does and some have faith that he doesn't.
The Sumerian king Tammuz, Jesus and Moses were gods. Did they exist? Who knows for sure?
Eric Clapton, idols and respected or influential people are called gods. Are these the gods in the definition of atheism? They exist. Doesn't matter if the reference is colloquial. Makes no difference at all.
-
A god is an object of worship usually to satisfy a desire or nullify a fear. An example of one is Sol, the sun. Many people go on pilgrimages to sun soaked beaches on the Mediterranean coast where they prostrate themselves on towels to soak up its warmth. The Germans even place their prayer towels in position the night before.
Right. The sun is a god. It exists. Gods sometimes exist. Sometimes they don't. But even when they don't they are still gods. Right?
-
What is a god? Do any exist?
There's nothing substantial available that could be seen in any way confirm that there is any such thing as a god or gods.
Here's your chance T S, provide the necessary viable evidence that god or gods exist and you'll be able to claim world fame as the first person to prove that a god or gods do in fact exist.
You're not one of these Cargo Cultists are you? Only Americans have spent a lot more time cruising around those south sea islands than most of us from the UK?
ippy.
-
No it isn't. Colloquially speaking gods exist. Colloquially speaking gods don't exist. Do gods exist? Yes. You have to be specific. Did the god Zeus literally exist? No. Does Jehovah literally exist. No one knows for sure. Some have faith that he does and some have faith that he doesn't.
The Sumerian king Tammuz, Jesus and Moses were gods. Did they exist? Who knows for sure?
Eric Clapton, idols and respected or influential people are called gods. Are these the gods in the definition of atheism? They exist. Doesn't matter if the reference is colloquial. Makes no difference at all.
It does make a difference if you want to have a meaningful discourse. If you fail to differentiate between 'Clapton is God', and 'Jesus is Lord' for instance, then your conversation will likely be redundant nonsense, valueless noise leading nowhere. You need to be clear what you are talking about and in what sense you use words where there are multiple meanings.
-
Doesn't matter if the reference is colloquial. Makes no difference at all.
It does if you want to make any sense at all and have any sort of meaningful discussion on the subject of theism and atheism.
-
Right. The sun is a god. It exists. Gods sometimes exist. Sometimes they don't. But even when they don't they are still gods. Right?
Might it not be more useful, and in line with knowledge to date and the normal use of language, to refer to the Sun as being a 'star'?
-
TS,
No it isn't. Colloquially speaking gods exist.
If by “gods exist” you mean that adjectival descriptions of various phenomena (eg Clapton or cheesecake) exist, then yes they do.
Colloquially speaking gods don't exist.
See above – using this meaning of “gods”, colloquially yes they do.
Do gods exist?
Which of the various meanings of the term “god” are you attempting here?
Yes.
Yes what?
You have to be specific.
You’re telling other people to be specific? Good grief… I need a break.
(By “break” I mean an interruption. I also mean a snapping of something. I also mean a vacation. I also mean the revelation of some news. I also mean what a wave does before it collapses onto a beach – hey it’s fun just lumping disparate and different meanings together and pretending that they’re all just one meaning. Maybe you’re on to something after all!)
Did the god Zeus literally exist? No.
How do you know that?
Does Jehovah literally exist. No one knows for sure.
And yet you just claimed to know for sure that Zeus did not literally exist. Why the special pleading?
Some have faith that he does and some have faith that he doesn't.
And some assert as a fact that he does.
And some simply say that they have no sound reason to think that he does. We call these people “atheists”, a position that requires no faith at all.
The Sumerian king Tammuz, Jesus and Moses were gods. Did they exist? Who knows for sure?
No-one does, though some have claimed to.
Eric Clapton, idols and respected or influential people are called gods.
Only in the colloquial sense,
Are these the gods in the definition of atheism?
Of course not.
They exist. Doesn't matter if the reference is colloquial. Makes no difference at all.
Epistemically, it makes all the difference in the world. That’s where keep going wrong.
Right. The sun is a god. It exists. Gods sometimes exist. Sometimes they don't. But even when they don't they are still gods. Right?
Wrong – see above.
-
Because, though atheist will be quick to point out that atheists have nothing in common they are equally quick to point out the commonalities of their opposition. Not particularly bright, atheists, really.
You dismiss me easily with Spud or Alan Burns or Vlad. Tack that on me. Makes no difference to me. You are all just Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. That isn't a compliment.
So we're the same sort of idiots. You should have figured that out long ago.
Yes you're right T S, atheist certainly do have a form of commonality in the ways they express themselves because if anyone is doing their best to reason things out and to be as rational as possible it would be inclined to look like we're all proceeding down a bit of a one way street.
Yes T S, I'll have to give you that one.
ippy.
-
TS,
Does it not occur to you that the problem here isn’t that atheists “cannot grasp the simple concept of god”, but rather that by smooshing together very different concepts of god you’ve made the claim of “a” concept incoherent?
No, I've taken the concept of deity, gods, that have existed for 6,000 years and still exists today. You are trying to "smoosh" the definition of gods together because you don't believe or lack belief in a narrow category of gods (supernatural). Your limited concept of the supernatural creator God of western culture dictates the erroneous limited concept that no gods can exist because a god doesn't have to be any of those things. Some gods are and some aren't.
You could make it a better conversation if you at least acknowledged the objection to what you’re doing, and then try to address it.
I have. Just now and many times in this thread prior to this.
We don’t need to – it’s incoherent.
How is it incoherent? Jehovah wasn't a god until someone said he was. You can't be a god until someone recognizes you as a god. Jehovah said he would be God to Israel. Jehovah said Moses would be God to Aaron and Pharaoh. Jehovah said the judges of Israel were gods. He said the angels were gods. Jesus was a god. Not God. A god. What does all of that mean? It means that to Israel, Jehovah was mighty and venerated. It means that Moses would be mighty to Aaron and Pharaoh. It means the judges, whether they were faithful or not, were mighty. It means the angels were mighty. It means that Jesus was mighty. Satan is called the god of the world. He's mighty to the world. That is what god means. Why is that incoherent? Because you don't understand it.
Again, just the latter…
No, not just the latter. Speak for yourself.
No, just the gods proposed by deists and by theists - in both cases “supernatural”, and in the latter case the ones able at will supposedly to intervene in human affairs.
Are only some of the examples. Supernatural and intervening in human affairs isn't necessary to be a god.
Yes there is - the gods of deists and of theists.
Show me a dictionary definition that specifies this.
There’s no such thing as "atheist ideology”. If you want to call adherence to reason and logic an “ideology” though, that applies to vastly more ”-isms” than to just atheism.
Equating your invisible ideology with reason and logic is only the justification of an ideologue. Everyone has an ideology. Everyone uses reason and logic.
No it doesn’t. What it “dictates” - all it dictates in fact - is that the atheist has been given no sound reasons to believe there to be gods.
Nobody cares. Doesn't matter.
No, your actual problem with atheism is either that you don’t understand what it entails, or you choose to mischaracterise what it entails.
I don't have a problem with atheism. Only a small portion of it's definition.
-
Might it not be more useful, and in line with knowledge to date and the normal use of language, to refer to the Sun as being a 'star'?
The sun is a star. The sun is a god. It was known as a god before it was known as a star, though that isn't relevant. A god can be anything or anyone.
-
The sun is a star. The sun is a god. It was known as a god before it was known as a star, though that isn't relevant. A god can be anything or anyone.
Maybe the sun was thought to go around the earth before we learnt more about it and that's without referring to the flat earth idea?
Nobodies found a fossilised Dinosaur saddle yet?
ippy.
-
The sun is a star. The sun is a god. It was known as a god before it was known as a star, though that isn't relevant. A god can be anything or anyone.
You seem to be marooned in infantile thinking.
-
You seem to be marooned in infantile thinking.
Oh, that's very clever. How is it that I'm marooned in infantile thinking?
You in denial? Ignorant of 6 thousand years of theism?
You think that be being completely ignorant of the word god you can make it go away by subscribing to atheism, and I'm marooned in infantile thinking?
Good one, Gordon. Very amusing.
-
TS,
No, I've taken the concept of deity, gods, that have existed for 6,000 years and still exists today.
No you haven’t. What you’ve done is shmoosh together claims about the objective existence of deities with descriptors of how people feel about various phenomena.
You are trying to "smoosh" the definition of gods together…
Er, no – I’m trying to separate them back to their discrete epistemological categories. You’re the one trying to blur the lines remember?
…because you don't believe or lack belief in a narrow category of gods (supernatural).
I have no belief in the existence of supernatural gods, but that “because” is (another) non sequitur. I’m keeping the definitions separate because they’re different claims: “X exists”; “This is how I feel about Y” respectively.
Your limited concept of the supernatural creator God of western culture dictates the erroneous limited concept that no gods can exist because a god doesn't have to be any of those things. Some gods are and some aren't.
This is unhinged:
1. My understanding of claims about supernatural gods is limited only by my knowledge of such claims that have been made available to me.
2. I have no concept that gods cannot exist. It would help if you would stop misrepresenting me (and atheism for that matter) about this. I do not say that gods (or leprechauns for that matter) cannot exist. I merely say that I have no good reason to think that gods (or leprechauns) do exist. We call this position atheism (and a-leprechaunism).
3. Some definitions of the term “god” involve the supernatural, some don’t. My atheism concerns only the former.
I have. Just now and many times in this thread prior to this.
No you haven’t. What won’t you address the problem that claims about the supposed fact of supernatural gods are fundamentally different from expressions of feelings about non-supernatural entities?
What’s stopping you?
How is it incoherent? Jehovah wasn't a god until someone said he was.
Did you mean to say that?
You can't be a god until someone recognizes you as a god.
Why not? Why wouldn’t you be a god just floating about the place, get a bit bored, invent people, then have them call you “god”?
Jehovah said he would be God to Israel. Jehovah said Moses would be God to Aaron and Pharaoh. Jehovah said the judges of Israel were gods. He said the angels were gods.
No, some books say that “Jehovah” said those things. You’re reifying - another fallacy.
Jesus was a god. Not God. A god. What does all of that mean?
Nothing. It’s incoherent because you won’t tell us which meaning of the word “god” you’re attempting.
It means that to Israel, Jehovah was mighty and venerated. It means that Moses would be mighty to Aaron and Pharaoh. It means the judges, whether they were faithful or not, were mighty. It means the angels were mighty. It means that Jesus was mighty. Satan is called the god of the world. He's mighty to the world. That is what god means. Why is that incoherent? Because you don't understand it.
No, because you won’t make up your mind about whether you’re claiming the objective existence of these things at all or just your feelings about them.
No, not just the latter. Speak for yourself.
Try looking it up. If someone wants to assert “there are no gods” I’m not sure there’s even a word for that, but atheism doesn’t require it.
Are only some of the examples. Supernatural and intervening in human affairs isn't necessary to be a god.
It is for the purpose of the meaning that atheism addresses.
Show me a dictionary definition that specifies this.
Try looking up “god”. Do you see how most dictionaries will number the various meanings? That’s because they’re different. Very, very different.
Equating your invisible ideology with reason and logic is only the justification of an ideologue. Everyone has an ideology. Everyone uses reason and logic.
Except you it seems, at least competently. Your fondness for logical fallacies gives you away. If you think preferring reason-based truths to just guessing about stuff makes me an “ideologue” though, knock yourself out.
Nobody cares. Doesn't matter.
If you don’t want your mistakes corrected, stop making them.
I don't have a problem with atheism. Only a small portion of it's definition.
Which you get wrong. I‘m an atheist. I’m an atheist because I have no sound reasons to believe in the existence of supernatural deities. This position requires no claims about the non-existence of gods.
Now write that down until it sinks in.
-
It does make a difference if you want to have a meaningful discourse. If you fail to differentiate between 'Clapton is God', and 'Jesus is Lord' for instance, then your conversation will likely be redundant nonsense, valueless noise leading nowhere. You need to be clear what you are talking about and in what sense you use words where there are multiple meanings.
Nonsense. I've explained a simple concept to you all repeatedly. You're obtuse. Blinded by ideology.
Clapton is God. A God is, among other things, defined as an adored, admired, or influential person. In that capacity Clapton is God, which is exactly the same as saying Jehovah is God. Or Jesus is Lord.
Stop reading into what is a god. It only means venerated from a root word meaning mighty. Veneration is defined as great respect; reverence.
Short of drawing you a picture I can't help you in your denial.
-
TS,
Clapton is God. A God is, among other things, defined as an adored, admired, or influential person. In that capacity Clapton is God, which is exactly the same as saying Jehovah is God. Or Jesus is Lord..
No it isn't. The first means: "This is how I feel about Clapton"; the second means, "this is what Jehovah is". As you keep ignoring the explanation though, what's the point of repeating it?
-
Clapton is God. A God is, among other things, defined as an adored, admired, or influential person. In that capacity Clapton is God, which is exactly the same as saying Jehovah is God. Or Jesus is Lord.
No it isn't - all 'Clapton is god' means is that some people thought he was a very good guitar player - a 'guitar god' so to speak. No-one (I suspect) ever considered that Clapton actually possessed the characteristic that define a god, namely some kind of supreme and all powerful entity that is above nature, hence supernatural.
Even if there really were Clapton-god believers (I don't actually think there ever were) their worship/veneration of him is entirely different to that of the believers in Jehovah or Jesus as god.
And if you simply going to define everything as somehow god then the whole notion of theism as well as atheism becomes completely meaningless.
-
TS,
No it isn't. The first means: "This is how I feel about Clapton"; the second means, "this is what Jehovah is". As you keep ignoring the explanation though, what's the point of repeating it?
Indeed - and actually it goes beyond that, the former means "This is how I feel about Clapton's guitar playing".
-
Nonsense. I've explained a simple concept to you all repeatedly. You're obtuse. Blinded by ideology.
Clapton is God. A God is, among other things, defined as an adored, admired, or influential person. In that capacity Clapton is God, which is exactly the same as saying Jehovah is God. Or Jesus is Lord.
Stop reading into what is a god. It only means venerated from a root word meaning mighty. Veneration is defined as great respect; reverence.
Short of drawing you a picture I can't help you in your denial.
Definition of 'god' from Oxford languages :
noun
1.
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
Whilst Clapton may be a great blues guitarist, no one seriously believes him to be the creator and ruler of the universe. People talking like that are profiting from the expressive versatility of the English language to make a point in the reasonable expectation that others will also read that in the same way. I've yet to meet anyone who identifies as atheist on the basis of not admiring Clapton's guitar work. Have you ? I think you are just playing about with obtuse word games and misdirection.
-
Oh, that's very clever. How is it that I'm marooned in infantile thinking?
You in denial? Ignorant of 6 thousand years of theism?
You think that be being completely ignorant of the word god you can make it go away by subscribing to atheism, and I'm marooned in infantile thinking?
Good one, Gordon. Very amusing.
Glad you enjoyed it, but you are missing the point.
So far as I can see 'God' is meaningless white noise and, as such, is easily dispensed with when it is used to refer to aspects of religious superstitions involving supernatural agents. It is even easier to dispense with when it is used in your equivocation-laden formulation, where you see the term being relevant to pretty much anything that takes your fancy.
-
Definition of 'god' from Oxford languages :
noun
1.
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
Why stop there? There's more. Kind of dishonest don't you think? Did you think you were the only one to get that link?
For the non-atheists or atheists who don't think they can redefine god after six thousand years, here is the Complete Definition (https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/god).
-
Glad you enjoyed it, but you are missing the point.
No, I get the point. Anyone who doesn't think like you is a marooned infantile thinker. I've run across enough atheists to be familiar with non-dogmatic dogma, faith in no faith, belief in no belief and the Utopian science agenda. Eugenics and all that. Nothing new there.
So far as I can see 'God' is meaningless white noise and, as such, is easily dispensed with when it is used to refer to aspects of religious superstitions involving supernatural agents. It is even easier to dispense with when it is used in your equivocation-laden formulation, where you see the term being relevant to pretty much anything that takes your fancy.
Not necessarily my fancy. Anyone's fancy. You still don't understand and you won't be able to understand until you a) do some research and b) abandon your nonsensical dogma.
-
Why stop there? There's more. Kind of dishonest don't you think? Did you think you were the only one to get that link?
For the non-atheists or atheists who don't think they can redefine god after six thousand years, here is the Complete Definition (https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/god).
Yes, we all know there are multiple derivatives and variations and colloquialisms, language is like that. Someone identifying as atheist however is likely referring to the core definition and not one of its many lesser derivatives. I don't see that you are making any real point, just playing ambiguous word games with shades of meaning to garner some sort of faux air of superiority.
-
Yes, we all know there are multiple derivatives and variations and colloquialisms, language is like that. Someone identifying as atheist, however, is likely referring to the core definition and not one of its many lesser derivatives. I don't see that you are making any real point, just playing ambiguous word games with shades of meaning to garner some sort of faux air of superiority.
You really expected something, anything, else?
-
Yes, we all know there are multiple derivatives and variations and colloquialisms, language is like that. Someone identifying as atheist however is likely referring to the core definition and not one of its many lesser derivatives. I don't see that you are making any real point, just playing ambiguous word games with shades of meaning to garner some sort of faux air of superiority.
In other words you don't have any real argument. You see, the Bible says God created the heavens and earth. (Genesis 1:1) Let us create man in our image. (Genesis 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Proverbs 8:30; John 1:3; Colossians 1:16) So, you have people in 1513 BCE using the term God. But then you have that same god saying that those people shouldn't ambiguously, if you will, worship other gods; that is they shouldn't put other gods before him. Who are they? Was it a competition to see who was the real creator like that old American game show (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What%27s_My_Line%3F)?
-
You really expected something, anything, else?
Note to the reader: they have no argument. At all.
-
Note to the reader: they have no argument. At all.
Oh yes, they do Sunshine!
Read back over the thread "Searching for God" and you will find that just about every facet has been well and truly debunked!
Except, of course, for the terminally Biblically brainwashed.
Bright Blessings, Love and Light and May the Old Ones watch over you and yours always.
Owlswing
)O(
-
Oh yes, they do Sunshine!
Read back over the thread "Searching for God" and you will find that just about every facet has been well and truly debunked!
Except, of course, for the terminally Biblically brainwashed.
Bright Blessings, Love and Light and May the Old Ones watch over you and yours always.
Owlswing
)O(
Hell hath no furry like a witch scorned, huh?
Biblically brainwashed . . . excellent!
The argument isn't Biblical.
-
Hell hath no furry like a witch scorned, huh?
Hmm - that would be the Black Moggy that rides on the handle of my broom, I suppose?
-
Hmm - that would be the Black Moggy that rides on the handle of my broom, I suppose?
Traditionally. But you see, often tradition is only distorted reality. So, God isn't a magic man in the sky etc.
-
Traditionally. But you see, often tradition is only distorted reality. So, God isn't a magic man in the sky etc.
I'm sorry to ask the question, but do you identify yourself as a Christian?
Because, if you do, your beliefs are the weirdest version of Christianity I have ever encountered.
-
I'm sorry to ask the question, but do you identify yourself as a Christian?
Because, if you do, your beliefs are the weirdest version of Christianity I have ever encountered.
Well, thank you. I wouldn't identify myself as Christian because Christianity has become something other than what it was long ago.
I identify as a Bible believer. I reject traditional mainstream modern day Christianity. My beliefs are similar to, but not exactly the same as the Jehovah's Witnesses because they got rid of the rubbish. They created their own in time, so I'm not a JW. I wouldn't be a part of any organized . . . sorry . . . organised religion. Ever.
-
In other words you don't have any real argument. You see, the Bible says God created the heavens and earth. (Genesis 1:1) Let us create man in our image. (Genesis 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Proverbs 8:30; John 1:3; Colossians 1:16) So, you have people in 1513 BCE using the term God. But then you have that same god saying that those people shouldn't ambiguously, if you will, worship other gods; that is they shouldn't put other gods before him. Who are they? Was it a competition to see who was the real creator like that old American game show (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What%27s_My_Line%3F)?
You're still not making any sense. Atheists don't have an argument, here's the way it works : theists make claims, atheists dispute them. It is for theists to make a robust case, one that stands up to scrutiny. You are just dancing around with word games is all it seems.
-
You're still not making any sense. Atheists don't have an argument, here's the way it works : theists make claims, atheists dispute them. It is for theists to make a robust case, one that stands up to scrutiny. You are just dancing around with word games is all it seems.
Oh, okay, never mind then. It was a typo.
-
You're still not making any sense. Atheists don't have an argument, here's the way it works : theists make claims, atheists dispute them. It is for theists to make a robust case, one that stands up to scrutiny. You are just dancing around with word games is all it seems.
You seem to be saying that atheists have a burden of disputation here.
That certainly smacks of making it up as you go along. There is certainly really only one set of grounds on which one can have the burden of disputation. Careful now. It might be dangerous to the cause to find more than one.
-
You seem to be saying that atheists have a burden of disputation here.
That certainly smacks of making it up as you go along. There is certainly really only one set of grounds on which one can have the burden of disputation. Careful now. It might be dangerous to the cause to find more than one.
'Burden of disputation': what does that actually mean, Vlad?
-
You seem to be saying that atheists have a burden of disputation here.
That certainly smacks of making it up as you go along. There is certainly really only one set of grounds on which one can have the burden of disputation. Careful now. It might be dangerous to the cause to find more than one.
No doubt that means something to you.
-
You're still not making any sense. Atheists don't have an argument, here's the way it works : theists make claims, atheists dispute them. It is for theists to make a robust case, one that stands up to scrutiny. You are just dancing around with word games is all it seems.
I think he is dismissing both theism and atheism on the grounds that 'theo' god is a vague term used to cover a multitude of objects of worship. Some are represented by a physical form and some are not. I prefer the ignostic approach that if there is not a clear definition then discussion is pointless. TS has suggested that Jehovah (JHVH) is his object of worship and so a starting point would be finding out what that name represents for him and take it from there.
-
TS,
In other words you don't have any real argument.
Yes he has. The argument is that some terms have multiple and epistemically very different meanings, and that you can’t just pretend otherwise.
You see, the Bible says God created the heavens and earth. (Genesis 1:1) Let us create man in our image. (Genesis 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Proverbs 8:30; John 1:3; Colossians 1:16) So, you have people in 1513 BCE using the term God.
And lots of other creation myths have their own but different narratives. That’s how their authors made sense of their worlds. So?
But then you have that same god saying that those people shouldn't ambiguously, if you will, worship other gods; that is they shouldn't put other gods before him. Who are they? Was it a competition to see who was the real creator like that old American game show?
“They” presumably were the gods of other tribal myths. Of course you’d want your god to be the only enchilada in town – it reinforces group solidarity.
Note to the reader: they have no argument. At all.
That’s dishonest. Just ignoring the argument that undoes you doesn’t invalidate it.
I identify as a Bible believer.
Just out of interest, why?
I reject traditional mainstream modern day Christianity. My beliefs are similar to, but not exactly the same as the Jehovah's Witnesses because they got rid of the rubbish. They created their own in time, so I'm not a JW. I wouldn't be a part of any organized . . . sorry . . . organised religion. Ever.
Fair enough.
-
I think he is dismissing both theism and atheism on the grounds that 'theo' god is a vague term used to cover a multitude of objects of worship. Some are represented by a physical form and some are not. I prefer the ignostic approach that if there is not a clear definition then discussion is pointless. TS has suggested that Jehovah (JHVH) is his object of worship and so a starting point would be finding out what that name represents for him and take it from there.
The name means he causes to become.
He is Creator of life, the universe and everything. He is Sovereign Lord. He alone is capable of deciding what is good and what is bad. By capable I mean properly equipped.
God isn't a vague term, it specifically refers to anything that is venerated. It is, in a sense, not unlike love. Just because one loves pistachio ice cream doesn't mean that everyone else loves it too or that pistachio ice cream has some mystical or metaphysical quality because many people love it.
Just because one loves their wife doesn't mean that love has lost it's meaning because not everyone loves your wife the same as you do.
The word god isn't meaningless because it applies to things other than the Abrahamic god prevalent in Western culture, or other supernatural creator gods.
-
TS,
Lots of mistakes here:
The name means he causes to become.
He is Creator of life, the universe and everything. He is Sovereign Lord. He alone is capable of deciding what is good and what is bad. By capable I mean properly equipped.
These are just unqualified assertion, not arguments.
God isn't a vague term,…
It is when you combine its various meanings into one all-encompassing one.
…it specifically refers to anything that is venerated.
One definition of it may do, others though don’t.
It is, in a sense, not unlike love.
Oh-oh…
Just because one loves pistachio ice cream doesn't mean that everyone else loves it too or that pistachio ice cream has some mystical or metaphysical quality because many people love it.
No, but one of the various meanings of the term “god” specifically does require “some mystical or metaphysical quality”. That’s your problem.
Just because one loves their wife doesn't mean that love has lost it's meaning because not everyone loves your wife the same as you do.
True but irrelevant. Love conceptually exists regardless of who feels it about whom. Again, you’re confusing the language used to describe something with the object itself. The relationship between language and reality is your problem here.
The word god isn't meaningless because it applies to things other than the Abrahamic god prevalent in Western culture, or other supernatural creator gods.
No-one said it’s meaningless – it’s multiply meaningful in its various contexts. Where it becomes meaningless is when you attempt to smash those meanings together because the result is incoherent – there’s no way to know which of the various meanings is the one you’re trying to discuss.
-
TS,
Lots of mistakes here:
These are just unqualified assertion, not arguments.
Given that the "starting point would be finding out what that name represents for him and take it from there" you are then suggesting that you are more qualified than I for those assertions?
It is when you combine its various meanings into one all-encompassing one.
There aren't various meanings, there are only various applications all meaning the same thing. Mighty venerated. "He thinks he's a god." "He is a god to them." "The gods smiled upon me and my call was put through." "My God created the heavens and earth." "God created the heavens and earth." "There are many creator gods throughout history." "Buddha said no God exists, and if they did they wouldn't concern themselves with the workings of man" "Man has been given the earth by God." "The carving was a god to the primitive people." "God damnit!"
They aren't all the same beings. Like man.
One definition of it may do, others though don’t.
Your is limited to the Abrahamic or supernatural.
No, but one of the various meanings of the term “god” specifically does require “some mystical or metaphysical quality”. That’s your problem.
Others don't.
Love conceptually exists regardless of who feels it about whom. Again, you’re confusing the language used to describe something with the object itself. The relationship between language and reality is your problem here.
No it isn't. Ignorance of the language is your problem.
No-one said it’s meaningless – it’s multiply meaningful in its various contexts. Where it becomes meaningless is when you attempt to smash those meanings together because the result is incoherent – there’s no way to know which of the various meanings is the one you’re trying to discuss.
Wrong, which I demonstrated above.
-
TS,
Given that the "starting point would be finding out what that name represents for him and take it from there" you are then suggesting that you are more qualified than I for those assertions?
No, I’m explaining to you that unqualified assertions do not justifying arguments make. For all I know you’ve read the Bible forwards, backwards and sideways and memorised every word of it too. That though would take you not one one jot of a scrap of an iota toward finding out whether any of it was actually true. “A book is true because it says it’s true” isn’t a good look. Sorry.
There aren't various meanings, there are only various applications all meaning the same thing. Mighty venerated. "He thinks he's a god." "He is a god to them." "The gods smiled upon me and my call was put through." "My God created the heavens and earth." "God created the heavens and earth." "There are many creator gods throughout history." "Buddha said no God exists, and if they did they wouldn't concern themselves with the workings of man" "Man has been given the earth by God." "The carving was a god to the primitive people." "God damnit!"
They aren't all the same beings. Like man.
Clearly not. You think someone saying “Clapton is god” makes Clapton “the same being” as the (supposedly) non-material god of the Christian faith? You need to give your head a wobble.
Your is limited to the Abrahamic or supernatural.
Again, no it isn’t. It’s only “limited” to the various, fundamentally different definitions and meanings of the term.
Others don't.
Yes, which is why – if someone wants to discuss their notion of “god – they need to establish which of the various meanings of that term they have in mind.
No it isn't. Ignorance of the language is your problem.
An “ignorance” you have yet to demonstrate.
Wrong, which I demonstrated above.
Not even close. You can’t falsify a problem by ignoring it.
By all means give it a go though.
-
Nonsense. If that were it you would have only 1 post.
I keep having to repeat myself. It gets a little tiresome. Either you are wilfully ignoring it or ..... hmmm
-
I keep having to repeat myself. It gets a little tiresome. Either you are wilfully ignoring it or ..... hmmm
Atheists are CONSTANTLY saying that their being atheist means ONLY that they don't believe in gods. How stupid and myopic. That's like saying being a theist means ONLY I believe in gods.
First of all, it involves more. Open your eyes.
Secondly, in a strictly literal sense it's obvious.
In other words of course the words atheist or theist imply strictly only one thing but that one thing involves and effects who knows how many things. Either it's pointless to be either atheist or theist and it effects no aspect of your life in any way or your just stupid and of course it effects many aspects of your life.
-
Clearly not. You think someone saying “Clapton is god” makes Clapton “the same being” as the (supposedly) non-material god of the Christian faith? You need to give your head a wobble.
How many times do I have to say this? 300 - 400 times? Anything or anyone can be a god. Being a god only means that one is considered mighty or venerated. That is what the words MEANS! The word means NOTHING ELSE! It is applied to ANYONE OR ANYTHING that qualifies simply by being MIGHTY or VENERATED according to the PERSON or PERSONS who's GOD IT IS!
Saying that an idol is a god doesn't mean there is any confusion about it being any other god. If you are Jewish or Christian or apparently residing in Western culture then you say God which means that to you or in context to your statement the god of the bible is the specific God to which you refer but that doesn't mean IN ANY WAY that that is the only GOD and any quality of any other God or god or goddess or deity is necessarily the same as any other.
Fucking hell it isn't that difficult to understand. It's the same thing as lord, or man, or king.
You people act like you're mentally retarded.
If someone from one place says King, their King or a king, that is the same as saying God, their God, a god. Except for a God instead of a King.
GET IT?
-
How many times do I have to say this? 300 - 400 times? Anything or anyone can be a god. Being a god only means that one is considered mighty or venerated. That is what the words MEANS! The word means NOTHING ELSE! It is applied to ANYONE OR ANYTHING that qualifies simply by being MIGHTY or VENERATED according to the PERSON or PERSONS who's GOD IT IS!
Saying that an idol is a god doesn't mean there is any confusion about it being any other god. If you are Jewish or Christian or apparently residing in Western culture then you say God which means that to you or in context to your statement the god of the bible is the specific God to which you refer but that doesn't mean IN ANY WAY that that is the only GOD and any quality of any other God or god or goddess or deity is necessarily the same as any other.
Fucking hell it isn't that difficult to understand. It's the same thing as lord, or man, or king.
You people act like you're mentally retarded.
If someone from one place says King, their King or a king, that is the same as saying God, their God, a god. Except for a God instead of a King.
GET IT?
You seem to be hung up on what a word means, definitionally, as opposed to how it is generally used: most people, here in Scotland anyway, would use the word 'God' to refer to a supernatural agent as portrayed in religious beliefs and superstitions, where in the Christian tradition this involves claims of being able to work miracles, not stay dead, and where its characteristics comprise the 'omnis'.
The 'Clapton is God' thing was just a bit of enthusiastic support from his fans back in the day, and even if this would meet one of the definitions you seem so fond of, that usage of 'God' is so clearly different from the religious usage that you seem to be flogging a dead horse. Personally, I would subjectively regard the late (and very great) Joe Pass as being greatest guitar player I've ever encountered whose playing is worthy of my veneration* - but I wouldn't use the term 'God' to refer to him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_kUJa1PueM
* respect or awe inspired by the dignity, wisdom, dedication, or talent of a person.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/veneration
-
How many times do I have to say this? 300 - 400 times?
Repeating nonsense is not going to make it suddenly make sense.
You people act like you're mentally retarded.
From somebody who doesn't seem to grasp basic English Language, this is rather comical. Words mean different things in different contexts, that's why dictionaries list different senses of a word separately.
-
You seem to be hung up on what a word means, definitionally, as opposed to how it is generally used: most people, here in Scotland anyway, would use the word 'God' to refer to a supernatural agent as portrayed in religious beliefs and superstitions, where in the Christian tradition this involves claims of being able to work miracles, not stay dead, and where its characteristics comprise the 'omnis'.
That's fine as long as you don't propose that that would negate any other god. That example isn't the definition it is an example. One of many different examples.
The 'Clapton is God' thing was just a bit of enthusiastic support from his fans back in the day, and even if this would meet one of the definitions you seem so fond of, that usage of 'God' is so clearly different from the religious usage that you seem to be flogging a dead horse. Personally, I would subjectively regard the late (and very great) Joe Pass as being greatest guitar player I've ever encountered whose playing is worthy of my veneration* - but I wouldn't use the term 'God' to refer to him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_kUJa1PueM
* respect or awe inspired by the dignity, wisdom, dedication, or talent of a person.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/veneration
I understand the nuance of Clapton being god but you have to understand that that doesn't mean Clapton isn't a god. There are many Guitar Gods. And I understand that those aren't gods in a strictly religious sense but that doesn't matter.
You don't get it. The King reference is the best I can do. If you don't get that you won't ever get what it means to be a god.
Clapton is God. Elvis is King. Michael Jackson is the King of pop. Do you not understand that the word king doesn't mean either King of England or a flippant metaphoric or colloquial application. King means ruler of something. Saying that Elvis is King doesn't mean there is some confusion about whatever formal ceremonial nonsense has to take place to be the King of England and Elvis having participated in that, it means Elvis is the king, or King, i.e. ruler of Rock 'n roll.
So when you use the term God, Godparent etc. whether you know it or not what you mean is someone or something that is mighty / venerated.
When you use the term king you mean someone as the ruler of something.
When you use lord you mean someone having authority, usually but not always granted by another. Landlord. Lord Melbury.
God means mighty / venerated. It doesn't mean anything else. It's applied to various forms. Mighty, respected guitar player. Mighty / respected ruler. Mighty / respected fertility. Mighty / respected whatever. Clump of shite. Doesn't matter.
-
Repeating nonsense is not going to make it suddenly make sense.
From somebody who doesn't seem to grasp basic English Language, this is rather comical. Words mean different things in different contexts, that's why dictionaries list different senses of a word separately.
You're a waste of space.
-
That's fine as long as you don't propose that that would negate any other god. That example isn't the definition it is an example. One of many different examples.
Nope - I'm not trying to negate any claim of 'God': if a claim of 'God(s) is made and not substantiated then it is a failed claim, so there is nothing to negate.
I understand the nuance of Clapton being god but you have to understand that that doesn't mean Clapton isn't a god. There are many Guitar Gods. And I understand that those aren't gods in a strictly religious sense but that doesn't matter.
You don't get it. The King reference is the best I can do. If you don't get that you won't ever get what it means to be a god.
Clapton is God. Elvis is King. Michael Jackson is the King of pop. Do you not understand that the word king doesn't mean either King of England or a flippant metaphoric or colloquial application. King means ruler of something. Saying that Elvis is King doesn't mean there is some confusion about whatever formal ceremonial nonsense has to take place to be the King of England and Elvis having participated in that, it means Elvis is the king, or King, i.e. ruler of Rock 'n roll.
Not being English I would be delighted if the claims of the current UK monarch were confined to England, but that aside all you're really doing here is riffing on equivocation again.
So when you use the term God, Godparent etc. whether you know it or not what you mean is someone or something that is mighty / venerated.
As regards this discussion I understand the term 'God' to refer specifically to the claims of supernatural agency made by theists, and when used it that context I regard the term as being meaningless. That some might use the term to refer to guitar players is a different category of usage that is mutually exclusive from theistic usage.
When you use the term king you mean someone as the ruler of something.
When you use lord you mean someone having authority, usually but not always granted by another. Landlord. Lord Melbury.
God means mighty / venerated. It doesn't mean anything else. It's applied to various forms. Mighty, respected guitar player. Mighty / respected ruler. Mighty / respected fertility. Mighty / respected whatever. Clump of shite. Doesn't matter.
I understand that terms like 'King' have different meanings, but I also recognise that these involve different usages, hence I don't confuse reading about a monarch with the use of playing cards.
-
Nope - I'm not trying to negate any claim of 'God': if a claim of 'God(s) is made and not substantiated then it is a failed claim, so there is nothing to negate.
If it's claimed to be a god then it's a god. It doesn't need to await Vogon or Atheist approval. It's immediately a god.
Not being English I would be delighted if the claims of the current UK monarch were confined to England, but that aside all you're really doing here is riffing on equivocation again.
Never mind. I'm done.
-
Atheists are CONSTANTLY saying that their being atheist means ONLY that they don't believe in gods. How stupid and myopic. That's like saying being a theist means ONLY I believe in gods.
First of all, it involves more. Open your eyes.
Secondly, in a strictly literal sense it's obvious.
In other words of course the words atheist or theist imply strictly only one thing but that one thing involves and effects who knows how many things. Either it's pointless to be either atheist or theist and it effects no aspect of your life in any way or your just stupid and of course it effects many aspects of your life.
You obviously have a different interpretation of atheist, so I'm going to say I'm not an atheist. I'll have to think of another word that describes someone who doesn't believe in gods. For now I'll use agodist. Please don't call me an atheist.
-
TS,
How many times do I have to say this? 300 - 400 times?
Just repeating a mistake doesn’t thereby make it not a mistake.
Anything or anyone can be a god.
Depends which meaning of the term you’re attempting.
Being a god only means that one is considered mighty or venerated.
In the colloquial use of that term, yes it does – it’s a description of how one feels about a known object with no reference to whether it exists at all, and not to whether it’s non-material.
That is what the words MEANS!
No, that’s just one of the word’s meanings. There are other, epistemically very different meanings too though.
The word means NOTHING ELSE!
That’s plainly not true. Another meaning of that word requires a non-material entity, generally freighted with additional qualities (able to function outwith the laws of nature etc).
It is applied to ANYONE OR ANYTHING that qualifies simply by being MIGHTY or VENERATED according to the PERSON or PERSONS who's GOD IT IS!
Yes, in the colloquial sense it is applied in that way. In the religious sense though fundamentally different criteria must apply too – non-materiality for example.
Saying that an idol is a god doesn't mean there is any confusion about it being any other god.
There is if you don’t distinguish which meaning you’re attempting. If you assert “god exists” are you merely expressing your feelings about, say, Clapton’s guitar playing, or are you instead claiming the existence of a non-material entity? Unless you tell us, there’s no way of knowing so the discussion becomes incoherent.
If you are Jewish or Christian or apparently residing in Western culture then you say God which means that to you or in context to your statement the god of the bible is the specific God to which you refer but that doesn't mean IN ANY WAY that that is the only GOD and any quality of any other God or god or goddess or deity is necessarily the same as any other.
But it does mean that they’re referring either to their supernatural god, or to the supernatural gods of other people. If the Jew or Christian is referring instead to the value judgements applied to guitarists, then they’re using the term in a completely different sense. The same strictly monotheistic Jew or Christian might for example quite happily say “Clapton is god” because he’d be using a different meaning of the term with a different context.
Fucking hell it isn't that difficult to understand. It's the same thing as lord, or man, or king.
It’s easy to understand that you’re wrong. Calling Elvis “the king” doesn’t thereby make him a member of a royal family. Again, you’re lost in the relationship between language and reality.
You people act like you're mentally retarded.
“You people” are actually acting like we’re right – because we are.
If someone from one place says King, their King or a king, that is the same as saying God, their God, a god. Except for a God instead of a King.
And they’d be making the same mistake that you do if they think just calling someone “king” thereby makes him the ruler of an independent state, rather than just describes how they feel about his abilities.
GET IT?
Much better than you do.
-
Depends which meaning of the term you’re attempting.
There is only one meaning.
In the colloquial use of that term, yes it does – it’s a description of how one feels about a known object with no reference to whether it exists at all, and not to whether it’s non-material.
Colloquial, informal or everyday mundane language doesn't imply belief or disbelief or lack of belief or anything else to do with belief. It's just informal. Nor does the word god itself imply anything to do with belief. Using the term God colloquially, which you incorrectly suggest, was used by the writers of the Bible in describing many gods, some who existed and some who didn't. Some who were mortal men and some who weren't.
Jesus and Moses were gods according to the Bible. What is the difference between those two and any other gods as far as divinity or godliness goes? Nothing. The differences between the two and other gods may be remarkable but those differences aren't anything to do with what it means to be a god. And being a god isn't dependent upon belief by anyone than the one making them gods.
In other words it doesn't matter what atheists say about it. They are still gods.
No, that’s just one of the word’s meanings. There are other, epistemically very different meanings too though.
Uh-huh. Present those.
That’s plainly not true. Another meaning of that word requires a non-material entity, generally freighted with additional qualities (able to function outwith the laws of nature etc).
The only thing that makes anyone or anything a god is the might and or veneration attributed to them. It has nothing to do with material, qualities or function.
Yes, in the colloquial sense it is applied in that way. In the religious sense though fundamentally different criteria must apply too – non-materiality for example.
No. There is no such criteria. Jehovah and Jesus demonstrates that. One material the other non-material. Both gods in the religious sense. In fact, religious or non-religious sense has no bearing on deity.
All of these things you are mentioning are only lame attempts to wriggle out of the definition of gods at the end of the definition of atheism so the only way you can justify that is to explain what those gods mean and how you suppose they don't exist as gods. You can't do that because it doesn't make sense, so I'm done with this discussion unless you can do that. So far no one has been able to define god in any way shape or form that remotely resembles accuracy. It's very simple but you can't do it. It's like there's a wall built up in you. Built, I think, early on in school or after leaving a false religion.
That wall and what it does to the atheist, without their knowledge apparently, is what I find so fascinating (but simultaneously annoying) about atheists.
-
You obviously have a different interpretation of atheist, so I'm going to say I'm not an atheist. I'll have to think of another word that describes someone who doesn't believe in gods. For now I'll use agodist. Please don't call me an atheist.
Normally I try to use the more inclusive terms believer or unbeliever. That way someone won't say "Well, I'm agnostic-strong-atheist-blah-blah-blah"
As far as sensibility goes, the order of the list would be atheism, antitheism, theism and agnosticism. The rest are just distractions as far as atheism / theism. Meaning they don't fit or apply or are just unnecessary schisms.
To me the atheist position is most logical because it's immediately apparent and doesn't require faith.
The term antitheist makes a little less sense because it takes up a contradictory position. Yes religion sucks but why define yourself by that or put yourself in harms way. I would, mind you, but that doesn't mean I think it's the most logical or reasonable thing to do.
Theism comes next on the list, because it requires faith. It doesn't seem to me a logical or reasonable position.
Agnosticism is just lazy ineffectual stupidity and is last on the position.
-
Normally I try to use the more inclusive terms believer or unbeliever. That way someone won't say "Well, I'm agnostic-strong-atheist-blah-blah-blah"
As far as sensibility goes, the order of the list would be atheism, antitheism, theism and agnosticism. The rest are just distractions as far as atheism / theism. Meaning they don't fit or apply or are just unnecessary schisms.
To me the atheist position is most logical because it isn't immediately apparent and doesn't require faith.
The term antitheist makes a little less sense because it takes up a contradictory position. Yes religion sucks but why define yourself by that or put yourself in harms way. I would, mind you, but that doesn't mean I think it's the most logical or reasonable thing to do.
Theism comes next on the list, because it requires faith. It doesn't seem to me a logical or reasonable position.
Agnosticism is just lazy ineffectual stupidity and is last on the position.
I also don't believe in leprachauns, fairies, ghosts etc. So you see not believing in gods is just one of an infinite things I don't believe in. It doesn't define me anymore than not believing in chocolate teaports hiding behind Jupiter.
-
TS
That wall and what it does to the atheist, without their knowledge apparently, is what I find so fascinating (but simultaneously annoying) about atheists.
You certainly seem, a bit like AB really, to have built up an impenetrable wall of conviction around yourself, although you do look out from behind a window of unbreakable, hurricane-proof glass to see what those outside are saying, I suppose.
-
If it's claimed to be a god then it's a god. It doesn't need to await Vogon or Atheist approval. It's immediately a god.
As a principal, though, that falls over as soon as you have competing claims from differing religions, or differing sects of religions:Catholicism says that salvation can only be reached through the church, Protestantism says that salvation is a personal matter between their God and the individual; Islam says Jesus was a prophet, Christianity says Jesus was an avatar of Yahweh; Judao-Christian sects claim there is only one god, Shintoism, Hinduism and others say there are many gods...
O.
-
TS,
There is only one meaning.
This is bizarre. Try looking at a dictionary. Do you see the list of different meanings for the word "god" it contains?
QED
Colloquial, informal or everyday mundane language doesn't imply belief or disbelief or lack of belief or anything else to do with belief. It's just informal.
Of course it does. No-one who says “Clapton is god” means by it that he’s supernatural.
Nor does the word god itself imply anything to do with belief.
It does if you’re attempting the religious meaning of that term.
Using the term God colloquially, which you incorrectly suggest, was used by the writers of the Bible in describing many gods, some who existed and some who didn't. Some who were mortal men and some who weren't.
I didn’t suggest that but, if they were describing both deities and mortals, then they were engaged in separate and different categories of meaning.
Jesus and Moses were gods according to the Bible. What is the difference between those two and any other gods as far as divinity or godliness goes? Nothing.
Everything: one was (supposedly) a man/god hybrid, the other was just a man.
The differences between the two and other gods may be remarkable but those differences aren't anything to do with what it means to be a god.
Of course they are. They’re fundamentally epistemically different categories of meaning.
And being a god isn't dependent upon belief by anyone than the one making them gods.
Describing how someone feels about someone else as a “god” (colloquial sense) doesn’t thereby by imbue them with the properties of a "god" (religious sense).
In other words it doesn't matter what atheists say about it. They are still gods.
In other words, it’s nothing to do with what atheists specifically think – it’s to do with what anyone with a grasp of the relationship between language and reality think.
Uh-huh. Present those.
1. God: a non-material deity outwith nature
2. God: a description sometimes applied to persons as a colloquial comment on their outstanding talent or ability
The only thing that makes anyone or anything a god is the might and or veneration attributed to them. It has nothing to do with material, qualities or function.
Bullshit. Buy yourself a freaking dictionary willya.
No. There is no such criteria. Jehovah and Jesus demonstrates that. One material the other non-material. Both gods in the religious sense. In fact, religious or non-religious sense has no bearing on deity.
Different religious senses – one is non-material (theological), the other isn’t (colloquial).
All of these things you are mentioning are only lame attempts to wriggle out of the definition of gods at the end of the definition of atheism so the only way you can justify that is to explain what those gods mean…
It's not my “lame” attempt at anything, nor is the lame attempt of atheists. If you don’t like that language sometimes uses the same terms with fundamentally different meanings then take it up with whoever decides these things. In the meantime though, if you want to make claims and assertions about “god”, then it’s your job to define first which meaning you intend.
… and how you suppose they don't exist as gods.
I don’t. Yet again, all I do is to determine that your reasons for thinking god(s) (religious sense) do exist are wrong – a trivially easy thing to do.
You can't do that because it doesn't make sense, so I'm done with this discussion unless you can do that. So far no one has been able to define god in any way shape or form that remotely resembles accuracy. It's very simple but you can't do it. It's like there's a wall built up in you. Built, I think, early on in school or after leaving a false religion.
Being American, I suppose I should forgive you for having little sense of irony. If you do buy a dictionary to look up the multiple meanings of the word “god” though, try looking up that word too. You clearly had a very bad idea a long time ago and are now so heavily invested in it that no amount of reason or evidence is allowed to talk you out of it. Why though are you wasting other peoples’ time with it?
That wall and what it does to the atheist, without their knowledge apparently, is what I find so fascinating (but simultaneously annoying) about atheists.
It’s your straw man. If you find it interesting nonetheless, that’s a matter only for you.
As for language, context and reality though…
…let’s say that you took a history class where the lecturer taught you about the kings of England, and for your assignment asked you to write about some other kings. And let’s say that you duly handed in your essay in which you talked about Clark Gable (“The King of Hollywood”), Elvis Presley ("The King of Rock and Roll") and Benny Goodman (“The King of Swing”).
And let’s say too that when your essay was marked “F” (as it surely would be) with the added comment, “TS – You clearly knew this course to be about royal heads of nations, not about popular nicknames for performers” would you tell him he was a “retard” in reply?
Why not?
See? Context and meaning is all. Context and meaning…
Try again.
-
Normally I try to use the more inclusive terms believer or unbeliever. That way someone won't say "Well, I'm agnostic-strong-atheist-blah-blah-blah"
As far as sensibility goes, the order of the list would be atheism, antitheism, theism and agnosticism. The rest are just distractions as far as atheism / theism. Meaning they don't fit or apply or are just unnecessary schisms.
To me the atheist position is most logical because it isn't immediately apparent and doesn't require faith.
The term antitheist makes a little less sense because it takes up a contradictory position. Yes religion sucks but why define yourself by that or put yourself in harms way. I would, mind you, but that doesn't mean I think it's the most logical or reasonable thing to do.
Theism comes next on the list, because it requires faith. It doesn't seem to me a logical or reasonable position.
Agnosticism is just lazy ineffectual stupidity and is last on the position.
That could depend upon your definition of agnostic. An agnostic tends to accept that he does not know. A gnostic is one who claims to know rather than just to believe in the indoctrinated stupidity of the believer. The gnostic would be top of the list as in his view he knows the 'truth'. The unbeliever would be next as he has not been convinced of the alleged truth of the believer. The agnostic would be next as the truth to him is that he honestly does not know. The believer would be in last position as he neither knows the truth nor has the honesty to admit this.
-
I also don't believe in leprachauns, fairies, ghosts etc. So you see not believing in gods is just one of an infinite things I don't believe in. It doesn't define me anymore than not believing in chocolate teaports hiding behind Jupiter.
I don't believe in leprechauns, fairies or ghosts either. Believing in gods is just one of many things I believe in. It doesn't define me anymore than not believing in the failed metaphysical experiment of evolution.
-
I don't believe in leprechauns, fairies or ghosts either. Believing in gods is just one of many things I believe in. It doesn't define me any more than not believing in the failed metaphysical experiment of evolution.
I can tell you one thing that you seem to believe that you know about that, in actuality, you know two-thirds of three-fifths of naff-all about and that is what the BRITISH think when it comes to religion, Christian or otherwise.
-
TS,
I don't believe in leprechauns, fairies or ghosts either.
See what you did there? You actually got the analogy with atheism right (“I don’t believe in” etc rather than “leprechauns etc don’t exist”). It’d help then if you stopped mischaracterising atheism as the latter henceforward when you try to talk about it
Believing in gods is just one of many things I believe in.
Which meaning of “gods” are you attempting here – are you claiming as an objective fact non-material beings, or just saying that sometimes people use that term to describe other people who are especially talented?
It doesn't define me anymore than not believing in the failed metaphysical experiment of evolution.
Are you trying to say evolution itself, or the theory of evolution that explains it (this relationship between language and reality thing really has got you foxed hasn’t it)? Either way, by all means have a go at demonstrating (rather than just asserting) either to be a “failed metaphysical experiment”. Good luck with that.
Incidentally, going back to the violence you do to linguistic meaning for a minute do you reserve that abuse just for theological terms or is it a generalised habit? If, say, you said “I’m going to use a means of transport (or “transportation” as presumably you’d put it) to travel from New York to San Francisco”, and I asked which type (‘plane, train, bus, car etc) would you also shout “THERE IS ONLY ONE MEANING OF TRANSPORTATION”, call me a retard etc?
Just wondering.
-
TS,
Incidentally, deciding that the only meaning of “god” is “that which is venerated” is arbitrary and wrong too. It’s quite possible in some belief systems for there to be gods that aren’t venerated – see “misotheism”, “dystheism” etc. Are the gods from these traditions (the Nigerian Yoruba for example) not gods according to your personal taxonomy then?
-
bluehillside Retd.
When you have something sensible to say I'll be more than happy to respond. Keep repeating stupid don't do it for me. Sorry.
-
TS,
bluehillside Retd.
When you have something sensible to say I'll be more than happy to respond. Keep repeating stupid don't do it for me. Sorry.
By "sensible" you seem to mean "agree with my mistakes rather than correct them". Given your abuse of language generally, this doesn't surprise me.
Anyway, your latest efforts are now in pieces at your feet. Try at least to deal with that or not as you wish, but you won't learn anything if you don't.
-
It doesn't define me anymore than not believing in the failed metaphysical experiment of evolution.
Evolution is an observed phenomenon and the theory of evolution is an explanation backed up by copious evidence. So you've now told us a fantastical (and rather self-contradictory) story about what you believe regarding your own idea of god, without the first hint of any reason as to why you believe it, and now the equally baseless assertion that an observed phenomenon and the scientific theory that explains it is a "failed metaphysical experiment".
How about stopping the silly nonsense about the meaning of the word 'god', and actually attempt to back up your own claims with some reasoning and/or evidence?
-
Evolution is an observed phenomenon and the theory of evolution is an explanation backed up by copious evidence. So you've now told us a fantastical (and rather self-contradictory) story about what you believe regarding your own idea of god, without the first hint of any reason as to why you believe it, and now the equally baseless assertion that an observed phenomenon and the scientific theory that explains it is a "failed metaphysical experiment".
How about stopping the silly nonsense about the meaning of the word 'god', and actually attempt to back up your own claims with some reasoning and/or evidence?
Because there is neither "reasoning" nor "evidence" as we understand the terms,
It might very well be that our friend from the other side of the Oggin is on a huge wind up to see just what we can be convinced is fact rather than Deadpool type fiction.
Trying to show that the U S of A is more advanced in its thoughts on the subjects of religion, God, etc than the 'Old World.
-
Hi Owls,
Because there is neither "reasoning" nor "evidence" as we understand the terms,
It might very well be that our friend from the other side of the Oggin is on a huge wind up to see just what we can be convinced is fact rather than Deadpool type fiction.
Trying to show that the U S of A is more advanced in its thoughts on the subjects of religion, God, etc than the 'Old World.
So far as I can tell TS is serious in his intent. He’s invested heavily over several decades in his beliefs though, so acknowledging that they’re nonsense is difficult to do – likely unacceptably difficult. He’s planted a set of fantastical claims (angels, Adam & Eve etc) on foundations made of sand, so cannot entertain the reason and logic that washes them away. That’s why he spits the dummy when he sees arguments he doesn’t like rather than tries to rebut them. That way, the citadel is safe.
Dishonest? Yes. Understandable though? I think so.
-
I was thinking about these posts of T S, I know, ippy thinking?
Anyway you only need to take a look & listen to a few of the Americans that phone in to Mat Dillerhunty on YouTube, say about four or five contributors, and that's being generous, these poor devils make T S look like Einstein by comparison.
By the way I don't see any value in arguing with anyone that disputes the T O E, other than when they try to stop the best evidence we have to hand being taught to our next generation especially when the evidence for evolution has, quiet obviously to most people, achieved the equivalent of game set and match.
ippy.