British Theism And Atheism

[Theoretical Skeptic]

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

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.

[Theoretical Skeptic]

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.

[Theoretical Skeptic]

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.

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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? 

[ProfessorDavey]

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.

[Theoretical Skeptic]

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!

[bluehillside Retd.]

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?   

[Theoretical Skeptic]

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.

[Stranger]

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.

[Stranger]

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.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

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.       

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.     

[Theoretical Skeptic]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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?   

[Theoretical Skeptic]

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, 

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.

[Gordon]

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.

[SusanDoris]

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.

[Stranger]

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, Collins, Cambridge, Merriam-Webster, 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.

[Theoretical Skeptic]

Reference? You don't appear to have got that from one of the mainstream English dictionaries. If you look at Oxford, Collins, Cambridge, Merriam-Webster, 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!

[Owlswing]

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.

[Stranger]

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.

[Gordon]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.