This blog has been created, not with the purpose of debunking Atheists, but proclaiming truth. Atheists have already debunked themselves the very moment they declare their Atheistic Worldview. So with respect, we reveal the Gospel, Biblically. We are Christians, ministers, theologians, and apologists for the Christian faith. We seek our eyes dry for these lost. We depend on "He will wipe away every tear from their eyes. ... grief, crying, and pain will exist no longer,..." ~Revelation 21:4
>> The part I saw on the description of this video “The atheist holds the personal belief that God somehow doesn't exist, a personal belief for which there is no evidence, and to which no valid argument leads, sadly.”
Turning the burden of proof on atheists? Really? It’s not up to us to prove your god doesn’t exist (we can’t prove gods don’t exist the same way theists can’t prove gods exist) because are not the ones who believe in him.
The burden of proof lies on the believer. If he says he believes in god because god exists, then prove god is real first.
Atheists don’t have the obligation to accept the theists’ claims because the theist fails to provide any evidence or argument to support his faith-based claims.
Agnosticism and atheism are not the same thing and they are not mutually exclusive. Agnosticism is about “not knowing gods exist or not because this is a question that is beyond the natural world and no human has the ability to know for certain if gods exist or not”. Atheism is about “lacking belief in gods” ; atheists lack belief in gods/don’t believe gods exist (that depends on the definition each atheist identifies himself the most).
An agnostic doesn’t say “I don’t believe in god”; an agnostic says “I don’t know/I’m not sure if god exists or not” Simple.
Both men are very respectable and have admirable levels of intelligence. Craig is particularly interesting in that he's a shining example of someone intellectually defending theism, something increasingly difficult and unpopular to do. Whether or not he's right, I lack the literacy and understanding to judge, at this point. I do know that I'll be reading and contemplating more of his stuff, though. But that anything either of these men has said has been posted in such a disrespectful, disorienting, embarrassingly biased video or on a trashy, pretentious website such as this is heartbreaking.
>>Turning the burden of proof on atheists? Really? It’s not up to us to prove your god doesn’t exist (we can’t prove gods don’t exist the same way theists can’t prove gods exist) because are not the ones who believe in him.
Its not a "searching" attitude and you know it. Its a positive stance, not searching but REJECTING. You reject the data, evidence, and reasoning.
>>An agnostic doesn’t say “I don’t believe in god”; an agnostic says “I don’t know/I’m not sure if god exists or not” Simple.
Wrong. An agnostic says, I deny the existence of God I know exists. Same as any other unbeliever. It all depends on how hard they are about it. Whether agnostic Atheist, weak Atheist, strong Atheist, or angry Atheist...they are all atheists. They REJECT all evidence for God because they presuppose there is not God to have any evidence for in the first place. Their worldview would HAVE to change for that to happen. Frankly, that would take a miracle. Psst, that is even more evidence of God. If He can change that heart of stone to a heart of flesh, like He did with me, then to deny even that evidence is absurd.
What in this video is referred to as verificationism, is the agnostic position, that whether God exists or not is unkowable and your favorite dictionary Merriam-Webster agrees.
1ag·nos·tic noun \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something
So first he takes the Agnostic position and shoves it into a different label, verificationism. Then he splits the athiest position into 2 parts and labels them agnosticism and atheism. A lack of evidence of God is the observation, and the statement there is no God is the conclusion. It's the same reason Greek gods, leprechauns and unicorns and other mythical figures are considered to not exist, a lack of supporting evidence.
>>2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something
So an agnostic is a person who is unwilling to commit to acknowledging the existence of God. Great, we are clear.
Absence of evidence is still not evidence of absence. Discounting evidence because one is fixed that evidence MUST not exist, is the definition of denial.
If the Bible and Jesus are indeed evidence, though rejected, means there is STILL evidence, no matter how flimsy, for the existence of God. So there is NO SUCH A THING as "lack of evidence" for God, no matter how many time you repeat it ad nauseum.
verificationism is not a word, but the description of verificationism fits the definition of agnostic. He is lying about the position that agnostics hold, they do not say the don't believe God exists, they say the existence of God is unknowable or if you prefer the second definition they will not commit to a position about something that is unknowable. They do not say they don't believe in the existence of God, as it says in the video, he is making up words and redefining words to suit his argument.
And if the Bible is evidence of God, I guess the Hobbit, Lord of the Rings, and Silmarillion are evidence of elves and orcs.
>>And if the Bible is evidence of God, I guess the Hobbit, Lord of the Rings, and Silmarillion are evidence of elves and orcs.
I have said this many times but mere logical possibility of (x) is not the same as adequate justification for (x). Jesus, Scripture, and nature itself is adequate justification for God's existence that is widely accepted throughout the earth for thousands of years for thousands of generations. This is not an appeal to popularity, its showing you that LotR is not evidence of anything but a story and that is even accepted by the author and creator themselves. You're fallacious argument, apples to oranges, is obvious and sad you're still using it. You're absurd. You are obvious as deny, deny, deny.
You just don't realize or care I suspect, just why the bible and "jesus" are rejected, do you? I've posted before books that show that biblical archeology is not all that (The View from Nebo, the Bible Unearthed, and Out of the Desert) etc. I've listed Judaic sites such as messiahtruth.com and jewsforjudaism.com that show that the "messianic prophecies" in the bible are anything but, and that christ does NOT fulfill what the Torah said would be the "jewish messiah".
Sorry Dan, but "nature" itself doesn't point to any such thing. It was people going out in the field who first began to gradually realize that Genesis was wrong. Read "The Creationists" by Ronald Numbers.
Absence of evidence is still not evidence of absence. It sure as hell is not evidence of existence now, is it?
Discounting evidence because one is fixed that evidence MUST not exist, is the definition of denial. Can you show that that is how atheists think? Otherwise, you've just set up a strawman.
D.A.N. writes: “Absence of evidence is still not evidence of absence.”
Not so.
Take evidence E supporting hypothesis H.
• P(H) means the probability H is true
• P(H|E) means the probability H is true given E
• ¬E means not-E, absence of evidence.
For E to be evidence, P(H|E) > P(H). (After all, if P(H|E) = P(H), then E would offer H no support, and if P(H|E) < P(H), E would be evidence against H.)
So given P(H|E) > P(H), with a couple applications of Bayes’ rule and algebra, we derive P(¬H|¬E) > P(¬H).
If our hypothesis H is “X is present”, then its negation ¬H is “X is not present” (that is, “X is absent”).
Hence, in mathematical terms, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It may not be proof of absence, but it is evidence of absence.
If I claim to own a car, that’s so ordinary you probably would take me at my word.
If I claim to own a nuclear missile, you would need more evidence than my say so.
If I claim to own a stargate to a planet in a distant galaxy, you would need evidence of the very highest quality. Even video footage would not be enough.
An immaterial being with magic wish-granting powers that circumvent the laws of physics requires stargate-calibre evidence.
>>An immaterial being with magic wish-granting powers that circumvent the laws of physics requires stargate-calibre evidence.
Of course the mere existence of an entire universe with natural and logical laws is still not "enough" evidence! Even your ability to reason about evidence, or laws, satisfies that "extraordinary evidence" that you require. Let me guess, you will get a shovel to move that goalpost quickly.
There is an extraordinary amount of extraordinary evidence for God's existence even. God has provided it everywhere. God has provided evidence in the stars of the heavens. God has provided evidence in the power of the seas, and the beauty of the forest. God has provided evidence in the intricacy of the human body. God has provided evidence in the course of history. God has provided evidence in the work that He did in the lives of the Israelites. God has provided evidence in the life of his Son and the miracles that were performed in His resurrection. God has provided evidence in the way He judges nations. God has provided evidence in the scriptures, revealing Himself through the prophets and the apostles. God provides evidence when you look at the wonderful harmony of the Bible written over many centuries by many men. God has provided evidence in the way that the Bible itself satisfies the deepest spiritual needs of people. God has provided evidence in the life transforming power of the Bible. We can go on and on.
Moving goalposts will be next:
"In fact, that cannot be evidence for God if he is a naturalist, or an atheist. Because according to him its not possible to have evidence for God. If he is in fact an atheist in terms of his views on reality, then all of these things must be reinterpreted so they are regimented, or will conform to, will comport with that man's naturalism, or atheism." ~bit.ly/stillevidence
Is there blood leaking out of my ear? I cannot comprehend this yet, but I will keep trying, but something tells me this is another Atheist's Epistemological Lacking
>> It’s not a "searching" attitude and you know it. It’s a positive stance, not searching but REJECTING. You reject the data, evidence, and reasoning.
What data? What evidence? What reasoning? You failed at giving data and evidence about your god’s existence. About the reasoning, you gave none. All you came up about the reasoning was flawed and non sense viciously circular reasoning bullshit and asking us in every single debate “how your reasoning about anything is valid?” crap in order to try diverting us from the subject in discussion.
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence
>> Wrong. An agnostic says, I deny the existence of God I know exists. Same as any other unbeliever. It all depends on how hard they are about it. Whether agnostic Atheist, weak Atheist, strong Atheist, or angry Atheist...they are all atheists. They REJECT all evidence for God because they presuppose there is not God to have any evidence for in the first place.
It’s not wrong. You can look in every single dictionary and all of them will say agnosticism is about not knowing if gods exist or not.
Better yet, ask Pvblivs what agnosticism is and how he defines it since he’s one. I bet he won’t say “I deny the existence of a god I know exists”.
What are you doing here is called intellectual dishonesty . You are changing the definition of the words in order to fit in your misleading opinions about atheism and agnosticism.
Atheism and agnosticism are two different animals and they are not mutually exclusive: agnosticism is “not knowing”; atheism is “lack of belief”. These are the facts; but we all know that facts means nothing to you since you choose to ignore them when they don’t fit in your limited worldview and you change the facts at your liking with the sole purpose to suit your arguments. Let’s face it: you are a reality denier.
>> Their worldview would HAVE to change for that to happen. Frankly, that would take a miracle. Psst, that is even more evidence of God. If He can change that heart of stone to a heart of flesh, like He did with me, then to deny even that evidence is absurd.
Ok, he did this so called miracle to you. Another personal experience…where’s the evidence of that? I just have to take your word for it? Sorry Dan, but I don’t…you might be gullible enough to take people’s words without questioning, but that’s not how I roll.
I don’t have to believe god exists just because you say miracles prove your god exists and “god can change that heart of stone to a heart of flesh, like he did with me…”.
How can I deny an evidence if you failed at showing one?
>> So an agnostic is a person who is unwilling to commit to acknowledging the existence of God. Great, we are clear.
An agnostic is person who is uncertain about the existence or non existence of gods, therefore they prefer not to take a position about believing in some god or not. They are not denying anything (because in order to deny your god we have to believe in him to begin with).
>> Discounting evidence because one is fixed that evidence MUST not exist, is the definition of denial.
No one here ever said evidence must not exist. All we say there’s no concrete and reliable evidence that proves your god is real because theists have failed at showing them, therefore we don’t believe he exists.
>> And if the Bible is evidence of God, I guess the Hobbit, Lord of the Rings, and Silmarillion are evidence of elves and orcs.
MaxFF said that, not me. You addressed your answer to the wrong person.
>> DAN, trying to prove your god is real by linking to posts of your own blog is laughable.
Typical. He even ignores the link I gave which shows that his hero William Craig would, if pressed, ignore the evidence of his own eyes if he saw that the "resurrection" never happened.
“Of course the mere existence of an entire universe with natural and logical laws is still not "enough" evidence!”
Yes. Nothing about the existence of a universe requires a supernatural explanation. Especially a universe where empty space seems to be teeming with particle-antiparticle pairs popping into existence at random and usually instantly annihilating each other.
“Even your ability to reason about evidence, or laws, satisfies that "extraordinary evidence" that you require.”
Nothing about reason requires a supernatural explanation either.
“God has provided evidence in the stars of the heavens. God has provided evidence in the power of the seas, and the beauty of the forest. God has provided evidence in the intricacy of the human body.”
All of which came about by natural forces, not magic.
“God has provided evidence in the course of history.”
We set the course of history.
“God has provided evidence in the work that He did in the lives of the Israelites.”
Like Ganesh has provided evidence in the obstacles he has removed in the lives of Hindus. Bet that kind of evidence doesn’t convince you of Ganesh.
“God has provided evidence in the life of his Son and the miracles that were performed in His resurrection.”
Like Allah provided evidence in the life of Mohammed and the miraculous flying donkey he rode to heaven. Does that convince you of the Qur’an?
“God has provided evidence in the way He judges nations.”
I’m not sure what you mean. Are you crediting earthquakes and tsunamis to God? Natural explanations are more plausible.
“God has provided evidence in the scriptures, revealing Himself through the prophets and the apostles.”
Who are no more credible than thousands of other prophets of competing mythologies.
“God provides evidence when you look at the wonderful harmony of the Bible written over many centuries by many men.”
Ha. That sure doesn’t describe the Bible I’ve read.
“God has provided evidence in the way that the Bible itself satisfies the deepest spiritual needs of people.”
As does the Book of Mormon, the Qur’an, the Bhagavad-Gita... Does the satisfaction of their adherents convince you their holy books are reliable?
“God has provided evidence in the life transforming power of the Bible. We can go on and on.”
I’m sure you can go on all day citing things with perfectly good natural explanations, crediting them to your deity of choice. As could Hindus and Pagans and Sikhs and every other theist. It’s as unconvincing for their deities as it’s unconvincing for yours.
If you want to convince me of supernatural beings with magic powers, show me a veritable miracle.
>>No one here ever said evidence must not exist. All we say there’s no concrete and reliable evidence that proves your god is real because theists have failed at showing them, therefore we don’t believe he exists.
Great! So now you admit that there is INDEED evidence for God. Just evidence that you reject as reliable. That is a start. I'll take it.
And now Dan twists words again...why don't you SHOW us just how "reliable" your evidence is, instead of just saying that it's evidence that she "rejects as reliable"?
>>Especially a universe where empty space seems to be teeming with particle-antiparticle pairs popping into existence at random and usually instantly annihilating each other.
Just wow. So this is testable, verifiable, and repeatable? Otherwise...
>>Nothing about reason requires a supernatural explanation either.
The claim is that God has revealed Himself to EVERYONE, and that this is exposed with every truth claim, every knowledge claim, and even every rational thought you have.
>>All of which came about by natural forces, not magic.
And you KNOW this how?
To clarify: God has provided evidence in the way He judges nations.
>>Ha. That sure doesn’t describe the Bible I’ve read.
>>Does the satisfaction of their adherents convince you their holy books are reliable?
You mean like the Book of Mormon, the Qur’an that points to the Bible as truth and from God?
>>If you want to convince me of supernatural beings with magic powers, show me a veritable miracle.
So you as a criminal, act as a judge, and place God on trial? That itself would be UN-Biblical. That being said, you have Jesus' Resurrection and many billions of hearts of stone, transformed to hearts of flesh, like myself. That should suffice, otherwise deny if you must.
Especially a universe where empty space seems to be teeming with particle-antiparticle pairs popping into existence at random and usually instantly annihilating each other. Just wow. So this is testable, verifiable, and repeatable? Otherwise... Is the "resurrection" or "creation week" or any such thing in the bible testable, verifiable, and repeatable? If such was the case, your side wouldn't need bullshit artists like Craig, now would you?
Here's a hint: None of it is, as I suspect Craig knows.
As to what Robin brought up, maybe this is what he meant?
As for Robin being a "criminal"...it's your god who according to his own uh, "word", ordered the deaths of babies in the OT.
Just who is the "criminal" again?
Unless Robin is somehow bloody worse than that, you've really got nothing to say here.
Now, about the book of Mormon and the Koran...the Koran says that Jesus was just a prophet, does it not? And Mormonism is just a cult, is it not? Yet you're using those as "evidences"?
The claim is that God has revealed Himself to EVERYONE, and that this is exposed with every truth claim, every knowledge claim, and even every rational thought you have. And there's those assumptions again...saying that everything out there is evidence of "your" god.
Why not the Muslim god since you all of a sudden see fit to use their holy book?
Sorry, he has not "revealed" himself to any atheists of any non-believer for that matter. If so, we'd ALL (as in all of humanity) be believers. Perhaps not all "followers" but we'd all believe.
I notice that you've once again ignored where I posted that the bible is shot down by archeology and failed messianic prophecies.
Please Robin, do read that link Dan posted about the bible being "supernatural". It's funny.
I appreciate your willingness and effort to engage my argument, even though it used unfamiliar symbols.
“How is it possible to have a negation of a hypothesis? Or for that to equal "X is absent"?”
The probability of a proposition (A), plus the probability of its negation (¬A), always add up to one. P(A) + P(¬A) = 1.
So if A is "the next card in the deck is a spade", ¬A is "the next card in the deck is not a spade". If the deck has had jokers removed, the probabilities would be 25% + 75% = 100%.
So for a hypothesis like M "there is a monster under the bed", then ¬M is "it is not the case that there is a monster under the bed".
(Or to use the presence/absence language of the aphorism, "the Monster Under the Bed is present"/"the Monster Under the Bed is absent".)
Dan, aren't you using a fallacy here about that "billions" being converted to a religion as being evidence of the truthfulness of that religion? The argument from popularity perhaps? What about the many MORE billions who don't and throughout history who have never believed? Wouldn't that be evidence then that xianity is false?
>> Great! So now you admit that there is INDEED evidence for God. Just evidence that you reject as reliable. That is a start. I'll take it.
The dishonest Dan is back and twisting my words again! In nowhere in my comment I said I admit there’s evidence for god and that I reject them as reliable. Again you are twisting my words to better suit yourself.
What I really said was there’s no reliable and concrete evidence that proves god is real because theists failed at showing them, therefore we don’t believe your god is real. Entendeu?
How am I supposed to reject evidences that don’t exist, you silly?
Like I said many times to you the reason why I’m an atheist is because there’s no evidence that proves gods are real.
The only “evidence” you have about your god’s existence is that – according to you - he revealed himself to everyone in stars of the heavens (PS: it’s sky , not “heavens”) in the power of the seas, and the beauty of the forest; in the intricacy of the human body; in the course of history; in the work that He did in the lives of the Israelites; in the life of his Son and the miracles that were performed in His resurrection; in the way He judges nations; in the scriptures, revealing Himself through the prophets and the apostles; when you look at the wonderful harmony of the Bible written over many centuries by many men; in the way that the Bible itself satisfies the deepest spiritual needs of people; in the life transforming power of the Bible.
Come on, me and Robin refuted you on that one.
>> DAN to Robin: So you as a criminal, act as a judge, and place God on trial? That itself would be UN-Biblical.
Dodging the question again? Robin is not putting your god on trial, he’s just asking you to prove there’s a magical being with supernatural powers and to show him a verifiable miracle. How come that is putting your god on trial?
> That being said, you have Jesus' Resurrection and many billions of hearts of stone, transformed to hearts of flesh, like myself. That should suffice, otherwise deny if you must.
DAN, that doesn’t suffice. No one here has to believe you, unless you have some other new concrete and verifiable evidence about Jesus’ resurrection and the many billions of hearts of stones transformed to hearts of flesh, the miracles supposedly made by your god and your Jesus, etc.
Again, no personal experiences, no personal revelations, without quoting the bible and without religious preaching, since all that are not proof of anything about god/Jesus unless you have concrete, verifiable and reliable evidences to back them all up.
Robin: “Especially a universe where empty space seems to be teeming with particle-antiparticle pairs popping into existence at random and usually instantly annihilating each other.”
DAN: “Just wow. So this is testable, verifiable, and repeatable? Otherwise...”
Pair production has measurable, verifiable effects, like the Casimir effect and Hawking radiation.
DAN: “The claim is that God has revealed Himself to EVERYONE, and that this is exposed with every truth claim, every knowledge claim, and even every rational thought you have.”
I know this to be untrue; your god has not revealed himself to me.
Robin: “All of which came about by natural forces, not magic.”
DAN: “And you KNOW this how?”
I can't be 100% certain that stars, seas, forests, and human bodies did not come about by magic. But my conclusion, that stars, seas, forests, and human bodies came about by nature instead, accords with my experience and with scientific facts and natural law. Nature is a far more parsimonious explanation than magic.
DAN: “God has provided evidence in the way that the Bible itself satisfies the deepest spiritual needs of people.”
Robin: “As does the Book of Mormon, the Qur’an, the Bhagavad-Gita... Does the satisfaction of their adherents convince you their holy books are reliable?”
DAN: “You mean like the Book of Mormon, the Qur’an that points to the Bible as truth and from God?”
Yeah, those books. Do you consider all three books harmonious and true? I think not.
Many people feel their spiritual needs satisfied by the Qur’an, but this does not provide evidence that the Qur’an is true, only that the Qur’an is popular.
Robin: “If you want to convince me of supernatural beings with magic powers, show me a veritable miracle.”
DAN: “So you as a criminal, act as a judge, and place God on trial? That itself would be UN-Biblical.”
I merely asked for evidence of the supernatural. I didn’t accuse God of any crimes here. (In the Hebrew Bible, Yahweh commits many atrocities, but that’s a different topic for a different post.)
DAN: “The claim is that God has revealed Himself to EVERYONE, and that this is exposed with every truth claim, every knowledge claim, and even every rational thought you have.”
>>I know this to be untrue; your god has not revealed himself to me.
That being said, how do you know your reasoning of that is even valid?
>>Nature is a far more parsimonious explanation than magic.
But obviously that's not absolutely true is it Robin? See when you reject absolute truth, not only do you refute yourself, all you are left with is arbitrary opinion, and sorry, but for the purposes of this discussion, I really don't care about your opinion.
How do you account for ANY absolutes in your worldview? How can you know ANYTHING to be absolutely true?
>> I didn’t accuse God of any crimes here.
You mean besides His existence? That is what you're judging here. You are placing God on trial to see if He is worthy of your praise.
>>In the Hebrew Bible, Yahweh commits many atrocities, but that’s a different topic for a different post.
Before we address that you have made some assumptions of your point that you will have to defend before the claim is even valid. Like Razi Zacharias said that I highlight in one of my posts, you have just invoked a moral law, or standard in raising that claim that your worldview cannot account for. That is your presupposition of the claim, is it not? Otherwise, the claim self destructs.
I can understand that H(x) + H(¬x) = 1 as the Hypothesis is either God or no God. What I do not understand is your insertion of ¬H. Its like saying ¬P and ¬ Proposition. Still a non sequitur.
Its like saying there is no "meaning" in a meaningful declarative sentence. It contradicts, its fallacious. Understandable for Atheists. :7p
Cute! However, sunrises happen every day. Something that would’ve happened anyway isn’t much of a sign:
“God, if you want me to eat my sister's chocolate cake, um, move that clock’s minute hand!” (waits a minute) (clock’s minute hand advances a minute) “Thanks, God!” (scarfs cake)
DAN: “That being said, how do you know your reasoning of that is even valid?”
Let me phrase my reasoning in a syllogism:
1. If a god made itself known to me, I would know it exists. 2. I don’t know that any god exists. 3. Therefore, a god has not made itself known to me.
This uses a valid logical form, “If A then B. Not B. Therefore, not A.”
Robin: “Nature is a far more parsimonious explanation than magic.”
DAN: “But obviously that's not absolutely true is it Robin? See when you reject absolute truth, not only do you refute yourself, all you are left with is arbitrary opinion...”
It’s not obvious to me that’s not absolutely true? I don’t reject absolute truth.
DAN: “How do you account for ANY absolutes in your worldview? How can you know ANYTHING to be absolutely true?”
Something true in objective reality is absolutely true. For example, scientists think our planet is about 4.5 billion years old. Young-earth creationists think our planet is about 6,000-10,000 years old. Regardless of what anybody thinks, there is an absolute truth, a correct answer.
The best method we have for making what we believe to be true conform to what is absolutely true is systematic testing and verification: science.
Robin: “I didn’t accuse God of any crimes here.”
DAN: “You mean besides His existence? That is what you're judging here.”
You can judge things other than crimes. A sporting event, for example.
DAN: “You are placing God on trial to see if He is worthy of your praise.”
No, our issue at hand is whether there is any god to begin with. Until a god is revealed to me, it seems premature to discuss whether it is praiseworthy.
Robin: “In the Hebrew Bible, Yahweh commits many atrocities, but that’s a different topic for a different post.”
DAN: “Like Razi Zacharias said that I highlight in one of my posts, you have just invoked a moral law, or standard in raising that claim that your worldview cannot account for.”
Though I have a lot to say about Yahweh’s immoral behavior in the Hebrew Bible, that topic would surely derail our conversation about evidence. Let’s not change the subject. We can come back to it later.
>>1. If a god made itself known to me, I would know it exists. >>2. I don’t know that any god exists. >>3. Therefore, a god has not made itself known to me.
Well, if you don't see the futility of explaining something to someone who cannot account for knowledge, I can't help that. You see, without such an account you can't justify knowing that God has not already revealed Himself to you and answered all of your questions.
>>I don’t reject absolute truth.
Of course you don't, but can you account for it in your atheistic (relativistic) worldview? Care to try?
>>Regardless of what anybody thinks, there is an absolute truth, a correct answer.
I agree but that is because it comports with my worldview. The entire atheistic worldview is necessarily based upon a relativistic worldview, and due to that, they must necessarily deny the existence of absolutes. These obviously ridiculous claims stem from the fact that they do not believe in a universal, abstract higher authority that has defined absolutes.
In summation:
The only possible way that we can know anything for certain is by Divine revelation from One who knows everything. It is the Christian position that God has revealed some things to us so that we can be certain of them.
Now, your turn. How is it possible for you to know anything for certain?
>>It’s the logical negation of H. Like H with “it is not the case that” in front of it.
Yea I understand that but in your case H is Hypothesis. My point was that how can there be a “it is not the case that” of the Hypothesis? Get my point?
Like Geddy Lee of Rush pointed out "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."
The hypothesis of no God is still a hypothesis NOT (¬H) was my original point.
Dan I agree but that is because it comports with my worldview. The entire atheistic worldview is necessarily based upon a relativistic worldview, and due to that, they must necessarily deny the existence of absolutes. These obviously ridiculous claims stem from the fact that they do not believe in a universal, abstract higher authority that has defined absolutes. Bullshit. Ever hear of mathematics? And also, the laws of logic, though you assert came from your god, did not. They were first figured out by the greeks through simple thought experiments and observation.
Good grief. This "trinity" bullshit of xians itself contradicts the law of non-contradiction.
Jesus can't also be god for the simple reason that even the bible itself portrays "god" and Jesus speaking about each other at Jesus' baptism. That voice from heaven saying that Jesus is his beloved son and stuff. And Jesus asking god why he's abandoned him when Jesus was crucified. Why would he talk to HIMSELF like that??
Besides, isn't he supposed to have known why?
Now, where is the evidence for your claim that it's YOUR god who's "defined absolutes"?
The only possible way that we can know anything for certain is by Divine revelation from One who knows everything. It is the Christian position that God has revealed some things to us so that we can be certain of them. And he spins his wheels again....assertion without evidence. Is Dan saying that "god" communed with him in the womb in order to let Dan know that he'd be able to trust his senses once he was born? Poppycock.
In this very thread, William Lane Craig was shown to be a liar. Rather than take down the video and apologize for the mistake, which would be the honest thing to do, you not only keep the video up, but continue to post more links to him.
If you have no interest in the truth, there's no reason to discuss anything with you.
If I wrote the number 2 on a chalk board and asked you what it was. You might say it was "the number 2" but it isn't, if I erased it you could still use 2. Its a written representation of the number but the number 2 is universal and immaterial. The nonbeliever cannot account for universal, immaterial concepts without presupposing God. You are presupposing your reasoning is valid. How do you account for immaterial concepts in a material universe?
>>They were first figured out by the greeks through simple thought experiments and observation.
Of reality of laws that already existed. What is your basis is for assuming that logic has not changed? How would you know if logic changed if it had? Was logic used in understanding the observations which were used in the formulation of logical laws? D'oh!
>>Good grief. This "trinity" bullshit of xians itself contradicts the law of non-contradiction.
How so? Since logic is a reflection of the way God thinks, and since God is triune, The Triune God is logical. God cannot contradict His own nature. Its simply a Non Sequitur.
>>Jesus can't also be god for the simple reason that even the bible itself portrays "god" and Jesus speaking about each other at Jesus' baptism.
I don't discuss Scripture with those that don't hold it as authoritative. That aside, does that not show the evidence of a truine God? (that was rhetorical)
>>That voice from heaven saying that Jesus is his beloved son and stuff.
He is.
>>And Jesus asking god why he's abandoned him when Jesus was crucified. Why would he talk to HIMSELF like that??
*Tisk *tisk You hath not been to Bible study in a while, at least not to mine.
It was an announcement of Prophecy fulfillment, dude! I thought you knew this? Oh that's right, you have not repented yet. 2 Timothy 2:24-26
Let me help.
Matthew 27:46 Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani (My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?)
Read ALL of Psalm 22 See it? "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?... a company of evildoers encircles me; they have pierced my hands and feet...they divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots..."
Again I did not KNOW this UNTIL I repented and trusted in Him.
>>Is Dan saying that "god" communed with him in the womb in order to let Dan know that he'd be able to trust his senses once he was born? Psalm 22:9-10 So there is that...
Robin: “Something that would’ve happened anyway isn’t much of a sign:”
DAN: “Like evolution?”
Probably couldn’t wait long enough for that one, anyway.
DAN: “Well, if you don't see the futility of explaining something to someone who cannot account for knowledge, I can't help that.”
If that’s futile, then why do we have kindergartens?
Robin: “I don’t reject absolute truth.”
DAN: “Of course you don't, but can you account for it in your atheistic (relativistic) worldview? Care to try?”
Sure. As I wrote right after that:
Robin: “Something true in objective reality is absolutely true. For example, scientists think our planet is about 4.5 billion years old. Young-earth creationists think our planet is about 6,000-10,000 years old. Regardless of what anybody thinks, there is an absolute truth, a correct answer.”
Reality accounts for absolute truth.
DAN: “The entire atheistic worldview is necessarily based upon a relativistic worldview, and due to that, they must necessarily deny the existence of absolutes.”
That is incorrect. For example, I do not deny the existence of absolute truth. You even quoted me saying it.
DAN: “The only possible way that we can know anything for certain is by Divine revelation from One who knows everything.”
Not even then, I think. A god could give you false revelations.
DAN: “It is the Christian position that God has revealed some things to us so that we can be certain of them.”
“The” Christian position? Are you sure no Christians have a different position?
DAN: “How is it possible for you to know anything for certain?”
We can know very little with 100% certainty, things proven in abstract realms of math and logic. My entire life could be a simulation. We could be in The Matrix. But for practical purposes, I can be certain enough.
>> "Robin: Nature is a far more parsimonious explanation than magic."
"DAN: But obviously that's not absolutely true is it Robin?"
Care to prove that claim of yours, Dan? As we pointed out to you before natural events are explained by natural phenomena; supernatural phenomena caused by some supernatural entity don’t explain natural events because they belong to different/opposing fields: supernatural is based on faith alone, which is not evidence; the explanations for natural events are based on scientific evidences.
>> "Robin: I didn’t accuse God of any crimes here." "Dan: You mean besides His existence? That is what you're judging here. You are placing God on trial to see if He is worthy of your praise."
Robin is not judging god’s existence; he’s just asking you to prove it your god is not an imaginary magic sky daddy. Care to try or you will keep with the dodging?
>> The sun does not rise at all. Science fail.
Sarcasm mode On: Science fails indeed! The Sun “rises” and “sets” because the greek god Helios flies with chariot of fire crossing the sky. Sarcasm mode: Off
For fuck’s sake, Dan! Are you that dumb? Thanks to scientific discoveries we know the sun doesn’t move at all and science explains why the sun “rises” and “sets” everyday. Why don’t you stop denying reality for a while? You might actually learn something!
>> Before we address that you have made some assumptions of your point that you will have to defend before the claim is even valid. Like Razi Zacharias said that I highlight in one of my posts, you have just invoked a moral law, or standard in raising that claim that your worldview cannot account for. That is your presupposition of the claim, is it not? Otherwise, the claim self destructs.
About the atrocities committed by your god we can give you – again - entire passages from your bible to prove our claim. But since you suffer from a sick moral relativism by defending and/or sugarcoating awful and violent acts such as mass murder, genocides, rape, infanticide and the killing of fetuses when is done/commanded by your god, you will just ignore it/change the subject/shift the burden on us/dodge the issue/act with dishonesty by twisting everything we say.
>> Evolution explains how life evolves. It has nothing to do with the belief in miracles and sure has nothing to do with the belief in your god or any other gods for that matter.
>> I agree but that is because it comports with my worldview. The entire atheistic worldview is necessarily based upon a relativistic worldview, and due to that, they must necessarily deny the existence of absolutes. These obviously ridiculous claims stem from the fact that they do not believe in a universal, abstract higher authority that has defined absolutes.
There’s no more relativistic worldview than the one you have Dan. You speak every time about the existence of absolutes - especially when is about morality - supposedly given by some supernatural higher authority and yet the morality you have is relative to the core. You consider the same vile acts to be both good/justifiable and bad/unnecessary at the same time depending on who does or commands it to be done.
>> I don't discuss Scripture with those that don't hold it as authoritative.
You are acting like Sye’s parrot just to dodge our questions when we show the atrocities and the contradictions in your bible; that’s just pathetic.
Not too mention you quote your bible over and over again when is convenient for you.
What leads me to 2 questions:
1 - Why do you say you don't discuss the scriptures with people who don't hold them as authoritative, but you quote your bible to us anytime you have the chance?
2 - Are you not going against your own - I mean - Sye's words by doing that?
Its a written representation of the number but the number 2 is universal and immaterial. So? Just because we can imagine things and have ideas that don't have physical form does not mean that your god has to exist. He could just be another imagined thing. The number "2" could just as easily have been given another "name" back when it was first mathematically came up with. All the numbers could have. The relationship between the numbers would still be the same.
Would your god still be the same if he had a different name? After all, you don't say which god has to be "presupposed" now, do you? How can you, using this "immaterial/material" crap argument, narrow things down to YOUR god?
There are a whole bunch of assumptions going into what this god of yours is, and how he acts. He's supposed to even have taken physical form, something that numbers can't really do.
He's supposed to have acted with the physical realm. If so, that can be tested or at least checked.
The nonbeliever cannot account for universal, immaterial concepts without presupposing God. You are presupposing your reasoning is valid. How do you account for immaterial concepts in a material universe? "Immaterial concepts" are able to be figured out with our physical brains. Is god just a concept then, with no basis in physical reality? Is he just a fictional character who's never physically interacted with the material world?
Jesus can't also be god for the simple reason that even the bible itself portrays "god" and Jesus speaking about each other at Jesus' baptism. I don't discuss Scripture with those that don't hold it as authoritative. That aside, does that not show the evidence of a truine God? (that was rhetorical) As I say below, no. Also, remember when jesus was praying at gethsemane or wherever, that he didn't want to do this, he ended the prayer with something like: "I want your will, not mine", implying that they even had different wants. Not something that could apply if he was only one being.
That voice from heaven saying that Jesus is his beloved son and stuff. He is. It also shows that they are two different people occupying two different places in space at the same time.
And Jesus asking god why he's abandoned him when Jesus was crucified. Why would he talk to HIMSELF like that?? *Tisk *tisk You hath not been to Bible study in a while, at least not to mine.
It was an announcement of Prophecy fulfillment, dude! Think, Dan...if god and jesus were really ONE person, and was capable of knowing the future, don't you think that he would have arranged it so that the so-called "prophetic verse" would make sure that, in "fulfilling" this prophecy later on, that Jesus would not have to indicate that he and god were different people when in actually they were not?
What I suspect really happened: To fit the script, bible writers just said that Jesus said those words...while not realizing that by doing so they would be shooting down this "trinity" idea of theirs.
I thought you knew this? Oh that's right, you have not repented yet. 2 Timothy 2:24-26 That verse says that god will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.
Don't really know if that means before or after acknowledging this "truth" but the bible elsewhere as Dan showed us, advocates that kind of circular reasoning where one must accept first, and then believe. A logical impossibility.
Again I did not KNOW this UNTIL I repented and trusted in Him. This is just stupid...you can't actually trust in something until one KNOWS, or fully believes. Otherwise, it's just called "hope".
Not the same thing.
When Dan admits that even he didn't fully believe until he accepted, all he's admitting is that he took a crapshoot...something I wager most atheists have tried, as I have.
Check out this link starting at Part II -- Psalm 22. You'll learn things like the following
...lot of stuff left out...
Thirdly, we are dealing with a mistranslation. What you see for the word "pierced" is translated from the Hebrew "ka'ari," which means "like a lion." This word is used again in that very same Psalm:
Psalm 22:21 Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns. (KJV)
Odd, that KJV would translate the very same word as "pierced" in verse 16, but as lion in verse 21. I suppose if the word really did mean "pierce" then verse 21 should read "Save me from the pierced mouth" but of course, that makes no sense. ...and on and on...
Is Dan saying that "god" communed with him in the womb in order to let Dan know that he'd be able to trust his senses once he was born? Psalm 22:9-10 So there is that... Dan, are you saying that a verse that xians have always tried to apply to Jesus himself now all of a sudden applies to everyone?
Of reality of laws that already existed. What is your basis is for assuming that logic has not changed? Can you show how they could change??
How would you know if logic changed if it had? Was logic used in understanding the observations which were used in the formulation of logical laws? D'oh! Look who's talking, presupper. You can go to Stephen Law's blog and ask him this question since I don't know how the greeks or whoever originally derived the laws of logic. I suspect it was just observing how things, including reasoning, worked.
Maybe you should take a philosophy course.
Good grief. This "trinity" bullshit of xians itself contradicts the law of non-contradiction. How so? One being can't be in two different places at once and talk to himself from those different places as if he was different people (ex: jesus prayer in the garden, god's voice during jesus baptism, etc)
Since logic is a reflection of the way God thinks, Evidence please...since the trinity contradicts the law of non-contradiction that premise of yours is shot down.
...and since God is triune, The Triune God is logical. God cannot contradict His own nature. Its simply a Non Sequitur. That's why I pointed out the problem with the trinity. You people shot yourselves down when your originators came up with that idea.
DAN: “If I wrote the number 2 on a chalk board and asked you what it was. You might say it was "the number 2" but it isn’t, if I erased it you could still use 2. Its a written representation of the number but the number 2 is universal and immaterial.”
No, it isn’t. 2 is an abstraction sapient beings, like humans and dolphins, are capable of drawing from pairs of any material things from apples to zebras.
But 2 could not be universal. Until sapient beings evolved to conceive of numbers, the idea existed nowhere in our universe.
Nor is 2 immaterial. Physically, your concept of 2 is an electrochemical pattern of firing synapses in your brain. We teach our children to form this concept, and associate it with a shared label like “2” or “二”. This is part of our language, a collection of shared ideas we use to communicate.
DAN: “The nonbeliever cannot account for universal, immaterial concepts without presupposing God.”
Concepts are neither universal nor immaterial.
DAN: “Since logic is a reflection of the way God thinks, and since God is triune, The Triune God is logical.”
3 = 1 would not be a reflection of a logical mind.
Reynold: “And Jesus asking god why he's abandoned him when Jesus was crucified. Why would he talk to HIMSELF like that??”
Reynold: “What I suspect really happened: To fit the script, bible writers just said that Jesus said those words...while not realizing that by doing so they would be shooting down this "trinity" idea of theirs.”
Reynold,
Bible scholars have a better explanation. When those gospels were written, a trinity doctrine had not been invented yet.
Second century Greek apologists associated Jesus with their prechristian concept of “logos”, a second, subservient divine person begotten before creation.
The roots of trinitarianism began when a Spirit was added to the mix, a third entity to tie together the Father and the Son, which were still regarded as separate. Ceremonies began to replace invoking Jesus’s name (as in baptisms in Acts) to a three-fold invocation.
It wasn't until the latter half of the fourth century that trinitarians began saying the three eternal persons were coeternal, coequal, and cosubstantial. God and Jesus were two parts of a three-in-one.
The Christian Bible is an anthology of books written across centuries by various men with various different ideas about God.
Mr. Craig makes the mistake of assuming the definition of atheism comes from the many views of people who belong to the category. This is similar to if, we use an example of Santa Clause, a child putting forward the argument that something is amiss about those who don't believe because some kids say there definitely isn't one, and kids keep changing what exactly they mean by not believing in Santa.
The crux of the definition of Atheism is a lack of belief. If you don't believe in god, you are an atheist. It is as simple as that, but theologians cannot make an argument that bolsters their faith if they just leave it as that. That is why you see it changed to "Atheism is the DENIAL of god" or "Atheism is the BELIEF that there is no god."
Some atheists may have certainty that there is no god, but the defining feature of atheism is lack of belief.
As to agnosticism, it is not weak atheism. It is the (correct) position that the supernatural, particularly god, is unknowable. Once you can admit that, you can engage in intellectual honesty.
>>The crux of the definition of Atheism is a lack of belief.
That just is not true, and this is what intellectual dishonesty is all about. There is indeed a belief, a belief of no God. Its a positive stance here. You cannot claim that God does not exist because there is lack of evidence. That would be fallacious. It is not an appeal to ignorance situation. You're stuck here. You cannot say there is evidence of no God, without having to be forced to provide some, and in that same breath you cannot say there is no God because there is lack of evidence. Because to deny the Bible, Jesus, and nature is just that, denial not 'lack'.
The dictionary got it right and its 'disbelief', the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true. There is nothing 'lacking' here.
DAN: “There is indeed a belief, a belief of no God. Its a positive stance here.”
A minority of atheists, called hard atheists or gnostic atheists, do have that belief. But most are agnostic atheists who do not take that stance.
DAN: “You cannot claim that God does not exist because there is lack of evidence. That would be fallacious.”
Yes, that would be fallacious, if any atheist were actually claiming that. Instead, atheists often say, “There is no reason to believe any gods exist, because there is lack of evidence.”
DAN: “Because to deny the Bible, Jesus, and nature is just that, denial not 'lack'.”
Nobody here denied nature, but nature cannot provide evidence of the supernatural.
If you admit the Bible as evidence, then
• The Bhagavad Gītā is “evidence” of Lord Krishna.
• The Egyptian Book of the Dead is “evidence” of Osiris.
• The Popol Vuh is “evidence” of Gukumatz.
Just like those books of ancient myths do not provide adequate evidence of those gods, so too your book of ancient myth does not provide adequate evidence of Jehovah.
Evidence is also lacking for a historical Jesus, who may be a purely legendary figure who never existed at all, like King Arthur. No contemporaneous evidence exists of this alleged Nazarene’s life, just anonymous hearsay decades-removed accounts copied and copied and copied and found centuries later. (Speaking of Nazareth, archeologists have found that the village of Nazareth did not even exist in the first century A.D.)
We have far stronger evidence, tribunals with contemporaneous sworn eyewitness testimony, that people in Salem, Massachusetts were proven to have committed, and executed for performing, magical acts of witchcraft. Nevertheless, we should not believe those women were actually witches.
Because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Witchcraft requires stargate-calibre evidence.
To forestall a possible misinterpretation: By “witchcraft”, I meant real magic. By “witches”, I meant users of real magic. I do believe in Wiccans, but I don’t believe they perform real magic.
>> That just is not true, and this is what intellectual dishonesty is all about. There is indeed a belief, a belief of no God. It’s a positive stance here.
Intellectual dishonesty is when someone changes facts in order to fit his or her arguments. Examples of intellectual dishonesty:
1 - In the video saying that agnosticism means "I don't believe in god" when - in fact - agnosticism means the existence/non existence of gods is unknowable.
2 - In the video saying atheism means "I assert there is no god" when - in fact - atheism is the lack of belief in gods.
3 - DAN saying atheism itself is a religion when - in fact - atheism doesn't have what's necessary to be a religion which are: the belief in the existence of divine entity (ies) and the commitment, trust and faith towards this divine entity (ies) through religious rituals and ceremonies;
4 - DAN saying atheism is a belief there's no god when - in fact - atheism is not a belief system; atheism is the lack of belief in gods.
>>You cannot claim that God does not exist because there is lack of evidence. That would be fallacious. It is not an appeal to ignorance situation.
We never claimed to know god doesn't exist because there's no evidence. We say we lack belief in gods because there's no evidence they exist.
>> You cannot say there is evidence of no God, without having to be forced to provide some, and in that same breath you cannot say there is no God because there is lack of evidence.
Shifting the burden of proof on us, again? Tsk tsk tsk.
It's not up to us to prove your god doesn't exist for 3 reasons:
1 - We never claimed your god doesn't exist. All we say is that we don't believe he exists due the lack of evidence.
2 - We can't prove god doesn't exist because: A) it's not possible to prove a negative; B) we can't prove your god doesn't exist the same way you can't prove he does.
3 - It's not up to atheists to prove your god doesn't exist (since we never claimed knowing for sure your god doesn't exist); it's up to theists - in that case, you - to prove he does (since you claimed to know for sure your god exists)
>> The dictionary got it right and its 'disbelief', the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true. There is nothing 'lacking' here.
But there is also dictionary which defines atheism as "the lack of belief in gods" such as here text but you chose to ignore that definition because it doesn't fit the erroneous opinion you have about what atheism is.
It's one thing to disagree with a definition of a word because it doesn't represent you; another thing completely different is claiming that definition is wrong because you don't agree with it and decide to invent one yourself in order to fit your arguments (which is intellectually dishonest)
>> Its a positive stance and you fully know it. It’s understandable that you even DENY this fact. That worldview of yours demands it.
Atheism doesn't demand anything. We don't deny your god; in order to deny your god we have to believe he exists and we don't.
The only reason why we lack belief in the existence of gods is due the lack of evidence.
As I said before atheists don’t have the obligation to accept the theist's claims because the theist fails to provide any evidence or argument to support his faith-based claims..
You failed to provide any evidence that your god exists. The "so called evidences" you gave about your god's existence (text) are evidences for other things, not for the existence of your god or any other gods.
>>A minority of atheists, called hard atheists or gnostic atheists, do have that belief. But most are agnostic atheists who do not take that stance.
The term "agnostic atheists" is oxymoronic. You cannot be both "unknowable" AND " rejection of" at the same time in the same way. Its contradictory at its core.
>>Just like those books of ancient myths do not provide adequate evidence of those gods, so too your book of ancient myth does not provide adequate evidence of Jehovah.
That is called an equivocation fallacy because the Bible is written as a historical narrative, the examples you gave cannot claim that, as the Bible does indeed.
>>Evidence is also lacking for a historical Jesus, who may be a purely legendary figure who never existed at all, like King Arthur.
You cannot discount the Bible, it is a very integral part of our history as cherished antiquity. You have heard of Julius Caesar and I am sure you believe that he existed, right? Well there were 10 manuscripts of antiquity that explained who he was as we know him today. 10 that is it, in one language, everything we know today about him came from just those 10 manuscripts, with the earliest one dating to 1,000 years after the original autograph.
By contrast, the New Testament antiquity of the Bible (with all its information about Jesus) was claimed to be written between 40 A.D. and 100 A.D. and there are 5,000+ known copies in Greek, 10,000 in Latin and 9,300 in other languages. They were written while many of the apostles were still alive and could be verified.
Dr. F. F. Bruce, the late Ryland’s Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester, asserts of the New Testament: "There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament."
Professor Bruce further comments, "The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical writers, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning. And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt."
Your presuppositions though, will determine if you will accept documented historical proof or not.
>>The term "agnostic atheists" is oxymoronic. You cannot be both "unknowable" AND " rejection of" at the same time in the same way. Its contradictory at its core.
No, sweety. Being an agnostic atheist is not oxymoronic since the two words have different meanings. Agnostic is about "not having knowledge", atheism is about "lack of belief". The keywords here is knowledge for agnosticism and belief for atheism. What would be considered an oxymoron if I claimed - for example and if existed such a thing - to be theist atheist since I can't have belief and lack belief in gods at the same time: or I believe in gods or I don't; there's no middle ground or being both altogether.
I consider myself to be an agnostic atheist because I don't know if gods exist or not (agnostic) but I lack belief in their existence due the lack of evidence (atheist).
Again, you are being intellectually dishonest by inventing meanings to terms you know nothing about just to fit your arguments.
>> That is called an equivocation fallacy because the Bible is written as a historical narrative, the examples you gave cannot claim that, as the Bible does indeed.
I don't remember who wrote it, but I'll use the example someone who posted on your blog where he or she said: the myth of Romulus and Remus was written as historical narrative by a roman historian. Following your reasoning, the story of Romulus and Remus is not a myth; it really happened, the twins were fed by a she-wolf after being left to die.
An atheist is someone who believes that no gods exist. It is much the same way that I "don't believe in the Loch Ness monster" because I believe it does not exist. Now, if there were compelling evidence, my belief might change. And, if there were compelling evidence, the beliefs of atheists might change. But someone who is undecided on whether there exist one or more gods is not an atheist. Babies are not atheists. Dogs and cats are not atheists. Plants are not atheists. And rocks are not atheists. There is nothing wrong with holding the belief that there are no gods. To date, there is no compelling evidence that there are. But playing along with "oh, no, we just lack a belief is as dishonest as anything Dan does." There is nothing wrong with atheism. (It may or may not be materially wrong. But we have no evidence to decide this.)
Mhich:
When you finished your statement with "due the lack of evidence," you showed that you had, in fact, drawn a conclusion. No matter how many times you say you "lack belief," you don't lack a belief; you have a belief. YOu believe that there are no gods. You may consider the possibility that you are wrong, just as I consider the possibility that I am wrong about faries not existing. But I am not ashamed to say that I have a positive belief that there are no faries.
Jeez, not this shit again... We went through this ad nauseum on another post and I have no real wish to do it all over again.
I agree with the statement: "I do not believe that God(s) exist."
I do not agree with the statement: "I believe that no God(s) exist".
There is no active belief in the first statement, there is, instead, a lack of belief. In the second statement there is a positive belief that no God(s) exist.
There is a difference ... and yet both are positions that people who self identify as "atheist" hold and both are covered under the definition of atheism.
You can argue that the definition is wrong if you like - along with the multitude of people who like to argue over whther you should use implicit/explicit/weak/strong/positive/negative etc... as qualifiers - but that won't stop the current definition for atheism in general covering both cases.
Cats, dogs, babies and rocks are irrelevant. As far as I'm aware no atheist here has claimed that cats, dogs, babies or rocks are atheists and, until a cat, dog, baby or rock chooses to join in and self identify with a philosophical position they will remain irrelevant IMO.
It also doesn't follow that because one holds a positive belief in the non-existence of one thing (fairies) that they MUST hold the same position about other things (God(s), ghosts, aliens etc...)
>> When you finished your statement with "due the lack of evidence," you showed that you had, in fact, drawn a conclusion.
Did I ever say that I didn't draw a conclusion? No. I said many times here to you and DAN the reason why I am an atheist is because there's no evidence that proves gods exist, therefore I lack belief in their existence.
You are an agnostic because you came to the conclusion that the existence/non existence of gods are unknowable.
What you don't seem to understand is I don't have a belief that gods don't exist as you say I do because: a)is not the definition of atheism that represents me and b) atheism is not a belief.
Even though I don't know if gods exist or not, I lack belief in their existence.
Considering the dictionaries, I've seem many definitions for atheism (not in that particular order): disbelief in gods; doctrine in the belief there's no god; system where there's no belief in gods, lack of belief in gods, denial of gods' existence, belief there's no god, etc.
I don't dismiss them (even though atheism is not a doctrine or a belief; atheism is the opposite of belief), but the definition that represents me, that I identify myself with is lack of belief in gods.
Pvblivs, you have to stop with your assumptions about what me or other people here think/don't think; what we believe/don't believe; what definitions of the words and terms we must - according to you - identify ourselves with/use/agree with.
Maybe the reason why you dismiss one of the definitions mentioned in the dictionaries (lack of belief in gods) is because you don't agree with. Ok. But that's your opinion, not mine.
I don't care if - for you, for theists or for other atheists - atheism is belief there are no gods. It's not the definition of atheism that I identify myself with and I won't suddenly change and start agreeing with you and use the definition of atheism you believe to be the only correct one just because you don't agree with me or with the definition of atheism I identify myself with the most.
My goodness, it's like the abortion thing all over again!!
>> But someone who is undecided on whether there exist one or more gods is not an atheist. I am not undecided about gods' existence. I just lack belief they exist.
>> Babies are not atheists. Dogs and cats are not atheists. Plants are not atheists. And rocks are not atheists.
Pvblivs this example of yours is not only irrelevant to the discussion but also very stupid.
>> But playing along with "oh, no, we just lack a belief is as dishonest as anything Dan does."
No, it isn’t. You can’t claim saying I lack belief in gods is dishonest just because you have the opinion this definition is the wrong one. It’s one of the definitions mentioned in dictionaries and those dictionaries are not going to take this definition out of their pages or some atheists will stop using this definition just because you believe to be the wrong one.
It would be dishonesty is this definition didn’t exist at all and it was something I pulled out of my ass just to suit myself and my arguments (like DAN does when making up definitions for atheism and agnosticism like you can see in his comments in this post.)
I’m not being dishonest because I’m not pushing the definition of atheism I identify myself with on other people and forcing them to accept the definition I use to define myself as atheist just because is the one I agree with.
For example: I agree with the definition of agnosticism mentioned in the video (“I don’t believe in god”). It’s intellectually dishonest since it’s wrong as you well know. But – for argument’s sake – is the definition of agnosticism I agree with and I try to push that on you, even though you pointed out to me the true definition of agnosticism and I keep inventing things and giving irrelevant explanations on why you must accept my definition for agnosticism. That’s dishonest. That's what you're doing with me and with everyone who happens to disagree with you.
Now, mention one single time that I tried to force my opinion about the definition of atheism I agree with on you. The only thing I did was to give the definitions of atheism mentioned in the dictionaries to show you that lack of belief in gods is one among many definitions for atheism and that is the one I identify myself with. Where’s the dishonesty in that?
Maybe you think I’m being dishonest because I don’t identify myself with the definition of atheism you think to be the only correct one. Is that the reason?
You can agree or disagree with my opinions, arguments and the definition of atheism that represents me the most; I don’t give a rat’s ass about it because your disagreement is irrelevant to me (not because of your disagreement itself, but because I won’t change my opinion just because you disagree with it)
"I don't remember who wrote it, but I'll use the example someone who posted on your blog where he or she said: the myth of Romulus and Remus was written as historical narrative by a roman historian. Following your reasoning, the story of Romulus and Remus is not a myth; it really happened, the twins were fed by a she-wolf after being left to die. "
I think Rufus first mentioned the Romulus story, but I went and found out the information about it. It was recorded by a famous Roman historian. It was even part of a book, called "The History of Rome" and that wasn't enough so I actually Google searched for a full translation of "The History of Rome" by Livy and it looked to me that it was, "written as a historical narrative."
Of course I would be interested if Dan would share, what the criteria are for, "written as a historical narrative" so we could just look through and see which ones meet the criteria.
When I say that I don't believe in Santa Claus or fairies, do you think I simply lack an active belief. Well, I "lack a belief" that your statement that you don't specifically believe there are no gods. EVERYONE who self-identifies as an atheist holds such an active belief. Really, it would be meaningless for someone who was undecided to self-identify as such. And you do not come across as undecided.
Mhich:
I hold the belief that "those who lack a belief in gods" is a useless category and that no one would create a term for it except to block the use of an existing term for a more useful definition that they didn't want used. In this case the more useful definition is "people who believe in a lack of gods." Even when pursuing the etymology, atheos means "no gods" as an atomic concept in its own right. It does not mean "no belief." So, atheism is naturally a belief that there are no gods. But neither you nor Freddie would be here if you merely lacked belief. You have a belief that draws you here. You must, or you would not come here. But you deny having any such belief and claim that you merely "lack beliefs."
>> I hold the belief that "those who lack a belief in gods" is a useless category and that no one would create a term for it except to block the use of an existing term for a more useful definition that they didn't want used.
The definition for atheism lack of belief in gods is just one among many. There are definitions that are completely wrong - such as a system that denies the existence of god for example that most atheists don't agree with.
There are other definitions such as disbelief in gods, lack of belief in gods, not believing in gods, belief there's no gods,etc. The ones I consider to be more accurate are the first 3 ones and the one I identify myself with is lack of belief in gods. The one you believe to be the only correct definition is the least accurate one since atheism is not a belief. Atheism is disbelief/lack of belief/not believing in gods' existence; atheism is the opposite of belief...that's a fact.
Again, your argument that "those who lack a belief in gods is a useless category and that no one would create a term for it except to block the use of an existing term for a more useful definition that they didn't want used." is based on your opinion which is not a fact since this opinion of yours is based only on your misleading personal worldview about atheism and not based on facts.
The fact is: "lack of belief is a definition of atheism mentioned in many dictionaries; it's a valid definition; many atheists identify themselves with that definition. You assuming that atheists who say "lacking belief in gods" is an useless category because you consider this definition to be the wrong one is dishonest. You may bury your head in the sand, cover your ears and go out screaming "la la la I can't/don't want hear you because you identify yourself with a definition of atheism I disagree with and I will only hear you if agree with me/accept my opinion as correct/true/accurate and start accepting the definition of atheism I believe to be the right one" is not going to make this definition less valid. Suck it up and move on already!!!
>> But neither you nor Freddie would be here if you merely lacked belief. You have a belief that draws you here. You must, or you would not come here. But you deny having any such belief and claim that you merely "lack beliefs."
Here you are again assuming to much. I can't speak for Freddie but the reason why I'm here has nothing to do with what you think . I'm an atheist for quite some time and I'm secure about atheism because I see no reason to change it. Of course there's the possibility I'm wrong and gods do exist, but no concrete evidence of their existence was presented to me, therefore I don't see a reason to stop being an atheist and become a theist due the claims that are based only on faith.
I'm not here because " I'm undecided if I lack belief in gods or not". I'm here to participate on debates, see different/opposing opinions from mine, see different arguments (it doesn't mean I have to agree with them) and learn something new (which I have, but it wasn't from DAN or you, that's for sure; since both of you acted with dishonesty in some occasions like coming up with flawed arguments and ignoring facts to better suit yourselves and - in your case Pvblivs - assuming to much about what we think or must think even though we proved you to be wrong; demanding us to accept your opinions about things - like it's your way or no way - because you act like you're always right and everyone who disagrees with you are always wrong and demanding us to consider everything you say to be relevant to the discussion; demanding us to adress the issues and having a tantrum when we consider your argument to be irrelevant and not worthy being adressed to)
Just another thing: if you want to debate with me about something, it's ok. But it's the last time I talk to you about this subject. You are free to answer me back; but unless you come up with something new - which I really doubt - I won't answer you anymore since I've already made my point, you've made yours and I don't see the need to keep on with this particular debate.
I have my opinions, you have yours; we don't agree with each other...let's leave it that because this talk got old and there's nothing else to be said, ok? Let's move on...
When I say that I don't believe in Santa Claus or fairies, do you think I simply lack an active belief.
Based on that statement, yes. You do not specifically state that you believe Santa does not exist (or that fairies do not exist). Why should I assume such when it's so much easier to ask you to clarify your position? We could then discuss Santa or fairies without me strawmanning your position.
Well, I "lack a belief" that your statement that you don't specifically believe there are no gods.
That's your prerogative.
EVERYONE who self-identifies as an atheist holds such an active belief.
This is demonstrably false as I self-identify as an atheist and I do not hold an active belief that god(s) do not exist. You claiming that I must believe otherwise does not make it so.
Really, it would be meaningless for someone who was undecided to self-identify as such.
What has meaning got to do with it? I self-identify as an atheist as the definition covers the general position I hold, that's all the reason I need. I could, if I wished, choose to self-identify with a different label or, like you, with no label. It is not the label that defines my position, it's my position which defines which label I choose to self-identify with.
And you do not come across as undecided.
Again this seems irrelevant to me. I may come across as less than undecided when we move on to specific arguments - such as Dan's presuppositional God - because I am more certain that such a god is logically incoherent. However, I'm yet to see truly compelling arguments that would cause me to actively believe that no gods exist and I see no reason why I should claim a belief that I do not hold.
I hold the belief that "those who lack a belief in gods" is a useless category and that no one would create a term for it except to block the use of an existing term for a more useful definition that they didn't want used.
You've yet to demonstrate that that is how/why the "lack of belief" definition came about. Regardless, I'm not using it to block anything. If an argument cannot be made against my stated position, why then, should I agree to accept a position that I don't hold simply so someone else can make an argument against it? It gets us nowhere as there's still no argument against the position I do hold.
In this case the more useful definition is "people who believe in a lack of gods."
How is this more useful? And more useful for what? If it doesn't describe my (or Mhich's) position then any discussion is little more than an intellectual exercise. Instead of demanding one party concede to something that doesn't describe them why shouldn't we base our discussions on positions people actually hold? Especially as Dan has stated that the purpose of the blog isn't to debunk atheism but atheists. I'm an atheist - debunk my position, not some position you think I should hold based on your opinion as to the 'correct' definition of atheism.
Even when pursuing the etymology, atheos means "no gods" as an atomic concept in its own right. It does not mean "no belief." So, atheism is naturally a belief that there are no gods.
If we're going to get technical the ancient Greek word which directly translated as "not God" was used as an adjective variously as: 1. without gods 2. denying or disdaining the gods (especially officially sanctioned gods) 3. generally: godless, secular 4. abandoned by the gods
It's latin derivative, atheos, is a noun which is translated as: 1. an atheist, one that does not believe in God
Which brings us to the French derived atheist again a noun which has several definitions including: 1. One who does not have a belief in the existence of God, god, Gods or gods. 2. Especially, one who does not have any religious belief; an irreligious person. 3. One who believes that no deities exist.
So we can see that both the active belief and the lack of belief are valid definitions of the word.
But neither you nor Freddie would be here if you merely lacked belief. You have a belief that draws you here. You must, or you would not come here. But you deny having any such belief and claim that you merely "lack beliefs."
A strange assertion to make. I am here in an attempt to increase my knowledge - of religion, of religious/non-religious thought - which may help me reach a more concrete belief regarding the (non-)existence of god(s) ... or maybe it won't. I'm also here for the debate, to procrastinate instead of work, out of habit etc... My lack of belief doesn't necessarily define why I'm here.
“It is much the same way that I "don't believe in the Loch Ness monster" because I believe it does not exist.”
I too am a hard a-Nessie-ist. I believe Nessie does not exist. But plenty of people remain agnostic on the matter, and those fencesitters also “don’t believe in the Loch Ness monster”. Either you have a belief, or you don’t.
“But someone who is undecided on whether there exist one or more gods is not an atheist.”
I disagree. Theism/atheism is binary. You either believe, or you don’t. No third option.
“Babies are not atheists. Dogs and cats are not atheists. Plants are not atheists. And rocks are not atheists.”
Plants and rocks have no minds. Though dogs and cats have beliefs, I doubt they’re capable of theism. So there’s no point in labelling them “atheists”.
Calling babies “implicit atheists” makes a rather trivial point that no one was born with a belief in a deity (contrary to claims like DAN’s “God has revealed Himself to EVERYONE”).
“When you [Mhich] finished your statement with "due the lack of evidence," you showed that you had, in fact, drawn a conclusion. No matter how many times you say you "lack belief," you don't lack a belief; you have a belief.”
Do you have a belief that Mhich is a black man?
To my knowledge, I've neither met nor seen a photo of Mhich. Nor have I heard Mhich make any claims about their color or gender. Since I have no evidence to draw a conclusion that Mhich is a black man, I do not have that belief.
How about you? Do you have that belief? If not, do you have a positive belief that Mhich is not a black man?
I don't understand what WLC is trying to do here. When I use the term atheist, I use it to mean generally lacking a belief in any gods due to a perceived lack of convincing evidence. Sure, under WLC's definition I'd probably be an agnostic more than an atheist... Though it depends on the god you're talking about. I quite firmly believe that Zeus doesn't exist. I suppose less firm in my belief that YHWH doesn't exist(Probably just due to cultural bias) and I wouldn't say I affirm the position "no god of any sort could possibly exist" at all. It's a gradient of certainty and uncertainty, it can't really be crammed into three categories. Dawkins did a pretty good job in the God Delusion with his seven degrees of belief. I believe that's a much more accurate presentation of people's beliefs.
But yeah, as to why I don't get what WLC is trying to do here. So by his definition, I'm not an atheist. So what? It's just a word. If we can get to a mutual understanding where everyone adopts WLC's definiton of agnosticism, I'll be a bloody agnostic then. But notice that nothing about my beliefs has changed. I'm not any more a of a theist than back when I used the label "atheist". I'm not any more convinced of Christianity than I was. I haven't seen the error of my ways and backed down from a position of "no god exists" because in truth, I never held that position. It's the same thing with another name.
If WLC or you or anyone challenges me to prove that atheism is true, I'll merely shrug and say that I can't do that. Proving god doesn't exist is impossible. It might be possible to disprove the christian God, but only if both parties agree on what they consider proof. If, for example, WLC accepts the notion that if there are any mistakes or contradictions in the Bible, the christian God doesn't exist, then it's possible to prove God doesn't exist. Many liberal christians however fully accept that there are mistakes in the Bible, but they don't think that says anything about God's existence. We might also agree that if man shares a common ancestor with other primates, God doesn't exist. But not all christians agree with that, either. In fact, most don't. You might think the extent of evil proves there can be no good God, but WLC contends this God might have morally sufficient reasons to allow all this evil. So we must agree on what constitutes as proof. Of course it's even more difficult to disprove a general "god" type ultimate superbeing behind the universe with no known specific attributes.
If you think me or Hitchens admitting one can't disprove God or prove atheism is enough for you to "win" the debate, fine. "Winning" a debate is almost as meaningless as the the random collections of vowels and symbols we use to categorize beliefs.
"Just another thing: if you want to debate with me about something, it's ok. But it's the last time I talk to you about this subject. You are free to answer me back; but unless you come up with something new - which I really doubt - I won't answer you anymore since I've already made my point, you've made yours and I don't see the need to keep on with this particular debate" I accept your decision not to address the topic with me. I don't see where you have made a point, although I see where you have made some claims. But I shall take it as though you had made that decision a couple comments back and not bother reading those posts where a reply would be talking to air.
Freddie:
"Based on that statement, yes. You do not specifically state that you believe Santa does not exist (or that fairies do not exist)." If you are going to lie to try to make your case, might I recommend that you stick to plausible lies? In the English language "I don't believe <X>" is succ a common substitute for expressing a belief that <X> is false that in the rare instances where womeone has not made up his mind when making the statement, he must resort to longer phrases to make that point clear. For you not to be familiar with the expression or (given the common usage) not to assume its use would be beyond o btuse and I do not believe that of you. That leaves that you are exhibiting a pretense.
Robin:
No, I don't believe that Mhich is a black man as she has identified herself as female. Were it not for that point I would have to say (more clumsily) that I don't know whether she was a black man or not. You see, if you weren't trying to make the claim that atheism is only a "lack of belief" you would take my statement that I do not believe her to be a black man to be ruling out the possibility, as in fact it is. That is the customary way the phrase "I don't believe" is used. "I too am [an] a-Nessie-ist. I believe Nessie does not exist. But plenty of people remain agnostic on the matter," I fixed it for you, no need to thank me. Yes, many people do remain undecided. And it would be both dishonest and futile to lump them in the category of "a-Nessie-ist." It would give the impression that we felt some need to inflate our claimed numbers. "I disagree. Theism/atheism is binary. You either believe, or you don’t. No third option." So you don't think that there are people who are undecided on whether there are gods? Let me tell you. I exist. I am undecided on whether there are (hidden) gods. I am not an atheist. I am offended at attempts to categorize me as one. It's not that I think that it is some sort of insult. But I don't like being placed into a group where I don't belong. I would be equally offended if you tried to reclassify me as an astronaut.
>>I am offended at attempts to categorize me as one. It's not that I think that it is some sort of insult. But I don't like being placed into a group where I don't belong. I would be equally offended if you tried to reclassify me as an astronaut.
Just so we are all clear, you are labeled from our perspective, as an antichrist. 1 John 2:18, 1 John 2:22, 1 John 4:3
All other labels are irrelevant. Jesus made that abundantly clear. Matthew 7:21-23
"Based on that statement, yes. You do not specifically state that you believe Santa does not exist (or that fairies do not exist)."
If you are going to lie to try to make your case, might I recommend that you stick to plausible lies?
I did not lie. Let's see what evidence you have to support your assertion...
In the English language "I don't believe " is succ a common substitute for expressing a belief that is false that in the rare instances where womeone has not made up his mind when making the statement, he must resort to longer phrases to make that point clear.
That'll be 'none' then. I don't give a flying fuck about whether it's the Commonest Thing In The World"™ according to you, you can take your fallacious appeal to common practice and shove it. That's not the way I work.
For you not to be familiar with the expression or (given the common usage) not to assume its use would be beyond o btuse and I do not believe that of you. That leaves that you are exhibiting a pretense.
I have no reason to assume a positive belief when such isn't indicated - despite your claim to the contrary - and to assume such a belief, when none exists, does nothing to aid discussion. Do you have some aversion to asking questions in order to ascertain someone's true beliefs? Or do you prefer jumping to unfounded conclusions, based on nothing more than your own opinion, only to then accuse people of lying when they point out that your assumptions about them were so very wrong?
Robin: “But plenty of people remain agnostic on the matter, and those fencesitters also “don’t believe in the Loch Ness monster”. Either you have a belief, or you don’t. ... Theism/atheism is binary. You either believe, or you don’t.”
Pvblius: “So you don't think that there are people who are undecided on whether there are gods?”
Of course there are, just like there are people undecided about Nessie. And to me, those people are also “atheists”, meaning “nonbelievers in gods”.
Pvblius: “I am not an atheist. I am offended at attempts to categorize me as one. It's not that I think that it is some sort of insult. But I don't like being placed into a group where I don't belong.”
Does it offend you when many of your fellow nonbelieving agnostics categorize themselves as “atheists”?
You don’t seem to mind us categorizing you with unbelievers, you just mind other soft atheists like yourself labeling that category “atheists”.
You know as well as I do that the expression "I don't believe..." conveys the positive belief of the falsehood of the thing "not believed." But then, you also know that to admit this openly would discredit your otherwise more plausible lie that atheism is a mere lack of belief.
Robin:
When Dan calls me an "unbeliever" he is not saying that I do not believe there are any gods, he is saying that I do not believe in his god. And that's true. I believe that his god is a fake. "Does it offend you when many of your fellow nonbelieving agnostics categorize themselves as 'atheists'?" It doesn't happen. There are now some atheists who pretend that they are agnostics who think the "atheist" label applies. But then, Lee Strobel pretended that he was an atheist who was convinced that the biblical god must be real by "it's in the bible so it must be true." I am not persuaded. Anyone who identifies himself as an atheist has a positive belief that there is no god. It is meaningful to make predictions of what might follow from specificly believing there is no god. Thus, it is useful to have a term for it. That term is "atheist." You cannot meaningfully make prediction from "lacks belief" because it is too broad. Thus such a category is useless except to prevent a term from being used for the desired category.
Dan:
I don't like your phoney labels either. But I expect christians to lie for their cause. I don't, or at least I didn't expect atheists to do the same. After all, atheists (for the most part) come to the belief that there is no god because they expect that, if there were a god, there would be direct evidence of it. Someone taking a position from the evidence doesn't need to lie.
--------------------
The only meaningful difference between "hard" and "soft" atheism is that "hard atheists" try to convince others that atheism is "correct" while "soft atheists" do not care if others believe in gods.
Something you do not "lack" is the attempt of articulation of your thoughts. That, I applaud. Something is amiss though.
Now, to call that label "phoney" is a positive stance in itself. Its denial of what Jesus, our Lord, claims. Eve did the same.
You're indeed taking a position and not remaining neutral on the matter of the Christian God. I am sure you are willing to admit that. At least I hope you would, to save intellectual honesty.
As long as we are clear that assuming the God of the Bible is not true, because you believe the Bible is not true, is a denial that cannot be natural itself. As Sye said, "denial of the truth of the Bible leads to absurdity." I agree, and see that plainly. If the Bible were false, you would lose the preconditions for the intelligibility you require to posit your position about God.
Either your common sense is broken, which I see no evidence of, or your denial is beyond 'natural'. I see the latter. I cannot explain it any other way. I see the "suppress the truth by their wickedness" as the Bible claims.
Also, it needs to be repeated that assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists, is question begging.
If the Bible speaks truth, then God says you deny Him because of the claim that He indeed has revealed Himself to you already. You are literally calling God a liar. You are in no way "neutral" which you are not claiming I hope, but it still needs to be pointed out.
It's nothing new for people to deny the existence of God or to create false gods to worship so that they can be their own god. It's one of the oldest sins in the book. You're not alone.
Shit, so Dan and Circular Sye are still at it: Making assertions without a shred of proof. "denial of the bible leads to absurdity"?
Bullshit. Look at some of the shit the bible says: If believers drink poison that they'll be unharmed. That's absurdity right there. If denying [b]that[/b] is absurd then I've a test for both of you.
And again: How has this "god" revealed himself or herself or themselves to us? We've already gone over how the bible itself isn't that accurate and how one needs ones senses in the first place to read the bible (since Dan and Sye keep saying that godbelief is the reason that they can trust their senses in the first place)!
This presuppositional crap must be what happens when theists realize that they've no actual evidence that can stand up to scrutiny so they just assume the very things they try to prove and pretend that they've won the debate.
In another post someone posted this which I find to be useful.
You know as well as I do that the expression "I don't believe..." conveys the positive belief of the falsehood of the thing "not believed."
Lol, always? No, of course not. Why are you still advocating that I should jump to unfounded conclusions instead of asking further questions?
But then, you also know that to admit this openly would discredit your otherwise more plausible lie that atheism is a mere lack of belief.
Firstly, there's nothing to admit as your assertion above is an appeal to common practice and therefore fallacious. I'm perfectly within my right to withold judgement on a person's beliefs - both positive and negative - until I have enough answers to make an informed decision about their beliefs.
Secondly, my claim that there is a definition of atheism that covers mere lack of belief isn't a lie. There is a definition of atheism that certainly does allow for my position - as we've seen over the course of these discussions - so I self identify as such and, unless you have something more than fallacious appeals to common practice or baseless assertions of phoney definitions, I'll continue to do so.
I make no claims of neutrality regarding your religion. Your god is both fictitious and evil. He is evil in the same way that we may judge certain characters in storybooks to be evil. He isn't really there. And that's a good thing. No, your label is phoney because it is used as a device for shunning people and telling christins not to listen to what outsiders might say. I conclude that the god of the bible is not there because his description is one of a meddler. He is one who cannot resist interfering in blatently obvious ways. And yet, I see no evidence. The meddler is clearly not there. I am quite aware that you ans Sye make the false claim that your god is a necessary precondition for reasoning. But the reality is that your god is incompatible with reasoning. "If the bible speaks the truth..." Well, the bible doesn't speak the truth. The bible speaks the claims of the religious leaders of the time. And it includes passages to make the people afraid to dissent. "Also, it needs to be repeated that assuming that the [b]ible is not evidence for [our fictitious god] because you do not believe [our fictitious god] exists, is question begging." Really, it doesn't. Even if your god did exist, the bible still would not be evidence of your god.
Freddie:
My argument is an "appeal to common practices" to the same extent that language itself is. If you want to go down the road that all language is unintelligible, then you will have to go it alone. But I will agree that the definition of atheism suits your position -- that gods do not exist. It just doesn't suit those who are undecided on the matter.
My argument is an "appeal to common practices" to the same extent that language itself is. If you want to go down the road that all language is unintelligible, then you will have to go it alone.
If I was trying to do that I would, however, I'm simply pointing out that your assertion - that I must mean I believe no God(s) exist when I say I do not believe in God(s) - is wrong and I thank you for conceding your argument for it is fallacious.
But I will agree that the definition of atheism suits your position -- that gods do not exist.
Of course that's not my position, my position is that I do not believe in God(s). I do not currently have a positive belief that "no God(s) exist" despite your continued attempts to force that position on to me.
It just doesn't suit those who are undecided on the matter.
OK Touché. My new point is how can something be evil, which is a moral standard, or law, within a worldview that does not allow a standard of morality?
Without a moral law, there could be no evil. Its a non sequitur to say there is not God, and there is evil.
How can something be good when the one who supposedly sets up a standard of morality doesn't even bother to follow his own rules? Ex) that "capital punishment" of the women and children of ancient Israel's (alleged) enemies?
Or: Why give us a "conscience" which is supposed to be some guidepost to this so-called standard, and then command actions that our consciences quail at?
To say that atheism "does not allow a standard of morality" is bullshit. Atheism just doesn't come with a pre-packaged standard. Nothing forbids atheists from coming up with out own.
Sure we can, D.A.N., just like you do with your subjective morality, based on the whims of a god of ancient slavebeating marauders, who just happened to invent for themselves a god who endorsed beating slaves and commanded them to maraud other tribes.
Again, we just have to figure out a moral code instead of brainlessly assuming that one came pre-packaged somewhere. The advantage is, that with changing circumstances, we can change the moral code to best suit the most people.
For example: Genocide is now frowned upon whereas biblegod himself ordered it in many cases. The bible endorsed or at least did not condemn slavery, whereas slavery is now illegal.
"How would that even be possible?" Well, if you had read my very next statement, you would see that I described exactly how.
Robin:
"Not only does it happen, freddies_dead and mhich did so right in this very thread." No, Robin, it doesn't happen. What does, and did, happen is that atheists pretend that they don't have a belief in the absence of gods and then say they still self-identify as atheists. It's a little like christians pretending to be atheists but then being "convinced" by "the bible says so." Those two believe specificly that no gods exist and have previously shown this, even though they deny it for the purpose of this discussion. I seem to remember Freddie telling Ray that he was already atheistic (believed in the absence) with regard to thousands of other gods and asking what was one more.
Freddie:
You went so far as to say my assertion of not believing in Santa was not specific and that my claiming that it was a fallacy of "common usage." "'It just doesn't suit those who are undecided on the matter.' "The definition suits me just fine." As I have already concluded that you are not undecided, that does not really contradict me. The first window into someone's beliefs is, of course, what he says they are. But sometimes people lie, like the christians who "play atheist." When someone's actions do not fit with his stated beliefs, we revise our assessment of what his beliefs are to fit those actions. Attempting to enforce the definition of atheism as the useless group of "lacking belief," which applies to babies, dogs, cats, plants, and rocks, does not fit someone who only "lacks belief." It does, however, fit with someone who holds a belief that gods do not exist but does not want the category of people who hold that belief spokan of as a group.
Pvblius: “Those two believe specificly that no gods exist and have previously shown this, even though they deny it for the purpose of this discussion.”
No true agnostics, eh?
freddies_dead and mhich specifically said they do not believe that. How do you reckon they have shown otherwise?
Pvblius: “I seem to remember Freddie telling Ray that he was already atheistic (absence of belief) with regard to thousands of other gods and asking what was one more.”
Fixed that for you.
What evidence do you have that freddies_dead and mhich are misrepresenting what they believe? Using a different definition of “atheist” than you won’t suffice.
"[Broke] that for you." I fixed your statement for you. Freddie was very much focusing on the fact that Ray believed these other gods do not exist. He was not referring to a mere absence of belief. "What evidence do you have that freddies_dead and mhich are misrepresenting what they believe?" Regardless of your claim that it will not suffice, the fact that they are pushing a definition of "atheist" that is so overbroad that it is useless as a category is not compatible with a mere lack of belief. The alternate "definition" exists only to block access to the standard definition. Obviously, when somone makes a generalized statement about atheist (whether or not you think the statement is correct; I often disagree with the statement) he is not trying to include babies, dogs, cats, rats, plants, rocks, sand, etc. Pushing such an overbroad definition needs an ulterior motive. Also, their arguments with Dan convinced me before they were claiming only to "lack belief." But I'm feeling lazy and don't want to hunt down details. It's easier to remember the general concept than to remember the specific points in these threads.
You went so far as to say my assertion of not believing in Santa was not specific and that my claiming that it was a fallacy of "common usage."
I did say your staement about Santa wasn't specific ... because it wasn't. My charge of you appealing to common practice, however, is based on your claiming that, when I say "I do not believe in the existence of [X]", I actually mean "I believe that [X] does not exist" because that's a common usage of the phrase. It is an appeal to common practice. Apart from being fallacious it's also false, in that I'm not using the phrase in that manner.
"'It just doesn't suit those who are undecided on the matter.'
"The definition suits me just fine."
As I have already concluded that you are not undecided, that does not really contradict me.
It is irrelevant what you have concluded - especially when your conclusions are based on incorrect premises i.e. that I mean one thing when I have said another. I have yet to decide on whether any God(s) exist.
The first window into someone's beliefs is, of course, what he says they are.
If only you'd accept what I say about my beliefs we might get somewhere...
But sometimes people lie, like the christians who "play atheist."
I haven't lied.
When someone's actions do not fit with his stated beliefs, we revise our assessment of what his beliefs are to fit those actions.
My actions have been consistent. I have expressed my position, shown that there is a valid definition of the term 'atheism' which fits my position and finally stated that I self-identify with the term based on that.
Attempting to enforce the definition of atheism as the useless group of "lacking belief," which applies to babies, dogs, cats, plants, and rocks, does not fit someone who only "lacks belief."
The position is a valid one. There is a definition of atheism that covers the position. I self-identify with that. I haven't tried to enforce anything. I certainly haven't applied the label to anyone or anything that is unable to identify with it - in fact I made a point of denying that babies, cats or rocks were atheists.
It does, however, fit with someone who holds a belief that gods do not exist but does not want the category of people who hold that belief spokan of as a group.
I couldn't give a toss about whether people speak about such a group. I acknowledge that such people - those that believe no gods exist - exist. I simply continue to point out that I am not part of such a group because I do not believe the same thing.
Freddie was very much focusing on the fact that Ray believed these other gods do not exist. He was not referring to a mere absence of belief.
Of course it was a discussion of what Ray believed, not me. I'm also happy to accept that there is more than one accepted definition of atheism. In Ray's case that's the dogmatic assertion that no God(s) exist - it would seem pointless to engage Ray using some other definition than the one he already uses himself.
Pvblivs: “Regardless of your claim that it will not suffice, the fact that they are pushing a definition of "atheist" that is so overbroad that it is useless as a category is not compatible with a mere lack of belief.”
That's not a fact: Socially, a “nonbelievers in deities” category is not useless but useful, which lack of belief is thoroughly compatible with.
“The alternate "definition" exists only to block access to the standard definition.”
Nobody blocked DAN or you from using a narrow definition.
But when you argue with soft atheists who are not “atheists” by your preferred narrow definition, they rightly tell you that your arguments against (hard) “atheists” don’t apply to them. They have no need to block arguments against hard atheists, since such arguments were never aimed at them.
“Obviously, when somone makes a generalized statement about atheist ... he is not trying to include babies, dogs, cats, rats, plants, rocks, sand, etc. Pushing such an overbroad definition needs an ulterior motive.”
Indeed, nobody but you has tried to apply “atheist” to plants and rocks. So what’s your ulterior motive? To knock down a straw man?
“Also, their arguments with Dan convinced me before they were claiming only to "lack belief." But I'm feeling lazy and don't want to hunt down details.”
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
freddies_dead and mhich are in a position to know what they believe, and you are not. So, since you provide nothing to back up your groundless assertion, I find their word more reliable than yours.
Robin: “Evidence is also lacking for a historical Jesus, who may be a purely legendary figure who never existed at all, like King Arthur. No contemporaneous evidence exists of this alleged Nazarene’s life, just anonymous hearsay decades-removed accounts copied and copied and copied and found centuries later. (Speaking of Nazareth, archeologists have found that the village of Nazareth did not even exist in the first century A.D.)”
D.A.N.: “You're is pure denial now. There is Overwhelming Evidence of Jesus' existence.”
No, in actual fact, there is not a scrap of contemporanous evidence of Jesus' existence. We can take that up in your other post.
“You cannot discount the Bible, it is a very integral part of our history as cherished antiquity.”
Can and did. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was also a very integral part of our history, but that doesn’t make it true.
“You have heard of Julius Caesar and I am sure you believe that he existed, right? Well there were 10 manuscripts of antiquity that explained who he was as we know him today. 10 that is it, in one language, everything we know today about him came from just those 10 manuscripts, with the earliest one dating to 1,000 years after the original autograph.”
No, that’s a lie. Julius Caesar’s footprint on history goes much, much deeper than 10 manuscripts. Firstly, there’s many more than 10 manuscripts, by reliable sources. Cicero alone left us over 900 preserved letters between Cicero and Caesar or between Cicero and others regarding Caesar.
Not only do we have eyewitness accounts of his life, we have Julius Caesar's own books, classics studied by Latin students to this day. We have his funeral orations. We have his poetry.
Every ancient historian of the time writes about Julius Caesar, including Suetonius’s “Lives of the Twelve Caesars”, Appian’s “Civil Wars”, Cassius Dio’s “Historia Romana”, and Plutarch’s “Parallel Lives”. Their histories critically examine disputed claims, quote and name sources — both friendly accounts and hostile accounts by Caesar’s enemies, and show a wide reading of witnesses and documents.
And we need not rely on texual evidence, since we have physical evidence of Julius Caesar’s reign. Inscriptions. Coins. We have evidence of battles his armies fought.
Jesus left nothing comparable. The gospels are anonymous, contradictory hearsay accounts with no historical scholarship: they never cite a source nor show any critical examination. Except for “Luke”, none even claim to be writing history. Nor have we any firsthand Book of Jesus. You’d think a godling wanting to record his vital message to posterity would do so himself, unfiltered by unreliable men. Nor have we any physical evidence of any of Jesus’s deeds.
Your suggestion that historical evidence for Julius Caesar is as sketchy as that for Jesus Christ ignores a tremendous amount of far more reliable evidence of his life and deeds.
By the way, like many ancient figures, Julius Caesar was claimed to be born of a virgin, and inscriptions on his coinage label Caesar "son of God". But we should not accept such extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence.
The only use I have seen for that category is substituting it for the actual desired category after someone has made a statement about atheists and responding "really? even babies?" That usage is not compatible with a mere lack of belief as it is quite clear that the previous speaker in such an instance was referring to a belief in a lack. Although, you have claimed it is useful, I don't see it. You will have to give an example (not of someone claiming to be an "atheist" without actually being one, but of a use for the overbroad category that includes bablies, dogs, cats, plants, and rocks.) Oh, and that "really? even babies?" line is blocking access to definition that the preceding person was using. "Indeed, nobody but you has tried to apply 'atheist' to plants and rocks." Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur. Also, I am not going to try (any further) to convince you that those two do not merely "lack belief." You have probably seen their discussions with Dan before and probably already know. But even if you don't, you should recognize that presenting someone that I have already identified as having a belief that there are no gods as an example of someone who "only lacks belief" but supports your definition will not work.
Robin: “Indeed, nobody but you has tried to apply 'atheist' to plants and rocks.”
Pvblivs: “Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.”
I overstated; I meant to write: “Nobody here but you has tried to apply 'atheist' to plants and rocks.”
Pvblivs: “You will have to give an example (not of someone claiming to be an "atheist" without actually being one, but of a use for the overbroad category that includes bablies, dogs, cats, plants, and rocks.)”
No, I don't. Like freddies_dead, I find it useless to categorize rocks as "atheists". If you want a use case for your straw category, provide it yourself.
But I can easily provide examples where a category encompassing people who lack belief in deities would be useful. Frex, support networks for nonbelievers, political activism for equal rights for all nonbelievers, discussion of discrimination both soft and hard atheists face.
Soft and hard atheists have much common cause to band together over.
Pvblivs: “But even if you don't, you should recognize that presenting someone that I have already identified as having a belief that there are no gods as an example of someone who "only lacks belief" but supports your definition will not work.”
Okay, forget freddies_dead and mhich, here’s thousands more.
"No, I don't. Like freddies_dead, I find it useless to categorize rocks as 'atheists.'" And yet, like Freddie, you insist on a definition, "lacks a specific belief in gods," that applies to rocks. I trust that you will agree that rocks do not have a specific belief in any gods. Your desire to trim that category appear to be on a strictly ad hoc basis. I have not created a straw category. I have identified a necessary result of your stated category that you find absurd. I believe that's called reductio ad absurdum. Your supposed example is not as useful as you seem to think. Any such discrimination applies also to theists that are outside whatever the local mainstream religion is. And, even if that were not the case, it would stil be more useful to say that both atheists and agnostics were facing discrimination than to impede the existing definition of atheist. It wouldn't be the first time that multiple categories were the target of discrimination. But, normally, one does not change the definition of one of the categories to include everyone being discriminated against. Or perhaps you are now making the distinction between "hard" and "soft" atheism the way I do. Hard atheists try to convince others that atheism is correct. Soft atheists do not. I do not believe that an agnostic (one who claims no knowledge of whether gods exist or not) would consider it useful to confuse discussions by claiming agnosticism as a subset of atheism. "Okay, forget freddies_dead and mhich, here’s thousands more." And how do you propose that I confirm that any of them actually fail to have the belief that there are no gods rather than make the assertion to support the cause of "see, here's an example of an agnostic who thinks agnostics should be regarded as atheists"?
Pvblivs: “And yet, like Freddie, you insist on a definition, "lacks a specific belief in gods," that applies to rocks.”
No, I would never insist a definition of “atheist” that includes non-people. I’d write a definition like “one who has no belief in deities”, not “something which has no belief in deities”.
Robin: “Okay, forget freddies_dead and mhich, here’s thousands more.”
Pvblivs: “And how do you propose that I confirm that any of them actually fail to have the belief that there are no gods rather than make the assertion to support the cause of "see, here's an example of an agnostic who thinks agnostics should be regarded as atheists"?”
I suggest that rather than try, you realize that your position, that not a single one of those legions of people who call themselves “agnostic atheists” is a genuine agnostic, is almost certainly wrong.
There are thousands of christians who "play atheist" in order to "demonstrate" that the bible is convincing even to atheists. Why should I be any more surprised that there are thousands of atheists who "play agnostic" in order to say that agnostics support the phoney definition of atheism? "No, I would never insist a definition of 'atheist' that includes non-people." On the other hand, if I were to encounter a being who wasn't human but had formed the active belief that no gods exist, I would regard that being as an atheist without worrying whether he should be called a "person."
Pvblivs: “There are thousands of christians who "play atheist" in order to "demonstrate" that the bible is convincing even to atheists.”
I’ve heard fake-sounding testimonials from the likes of Kirk Cameron too. But I don’t doubt that some of those Christians probably were unskeptical atheists-by-default persuaded by evangelists.
After all, every Christian in the world was once an implicit atheist.
Pvblivs: “Why should I be any more surprised that there are thousands of atheists who "play agnostic" in order to say that agnostics support the phoney definition of atheism?”
As opposed to being agnostics who do consider themselves atheists? Is that so impossible?
Kirk Cameron was never an atheist. And "implicit atheist" is a meaningless construction. Atheism is an explicit position. Anyone who claims someone to be "atheist by default" may as well be calling rocks atheists. Gee, maybe now you can have some people claim that they self-identify as "atheist" because they "never even heard about the concept of gods." "As opposed to being agnostics who do consider themselves atheists? Is that so impossible?" Yes, it is so impossible. And it is precisely because you push "implicit atheist" and "atheist by default." That should be a red flag to anyone that you are pushing a phoney definition to replace a pre-existing one -- as, indeed, you are. It might have been plausible if you had restricted the term to those who had heard of the concept of gods and then determined whether they believed. But it is far too late for that now. Now, if you try even that definition, I have to regard it as phoney, because it is an adjustment to an obviously phoney definition made to sound more reasonable.
Pvblivs: “Gee, maybe now you can have some people claim that they self-identify as "atheist" because they "never even heard about the concept of gods."”
Now that would be absurd.
I think “agnostic atheist” seems impossible to you because you seem not to understand how “agnostic” is being used:
Pvblivs: “I do not believe that an agnostic (one who claims no knowledge of whether gods exist or not) would consider it useful to confuse discussions by claiming agnosticism as a subset of atheism.”
You misunderstand: People in the freethought community don’t consider agnosticism “as a subset of atheism”, but as an overlapping set. Mhich explained this way back in the first comment. They’re separate dimensions: “gnostic/agnostic” regards what you (think you) know, while “theism/atheism” regards what you believe. In a Venn diagram, “agnostic theists” lie within the “agnostic” circle but outside the “atheist” circle, while “agnostic atheists” lie within an intersection of both.
To clarify all this jargon, a little glossary of how freethought groups use these terms:
A strong atheist or hard atheist believes there are no gods. (Some scholarly literature refers to this with Anthony Flew’s term positive atheism, but that term didn’t catch on over the Internet.)
A weak atheist or soft atheist lacks belief in the existence of gods. (Some scholarly literature refers to this with Anthony Flew’s term negative atheism.)
An implicit atheist lacks belief in deities simply because they haven’t considered it. All implicit atheists would be weak atheists.
An explicit atheist consciously rejects a belief in gods. Explicit atheists may be weak or strong atheists, but all strong atheists are explicit atheists.
A strong agnostic or hard agnostic is one who believes the question of existence of deities is unanswerable. That not only are deities unproven, they never will be proven.
A weak agnostic doesn't take a position on whether we can know whether gods exist. You might say they're agnostic about hard agnosticism.
(A)theism is about whether you believe, while (a)gnosticism is about whether you know. They can combine in four ways:
An agnostic theist believes a god or gods exist, but doesn’t think they know they exist. Agnostic theists may be weak or strong agnostics. Fideists like Martin Gardner are agnostic theists. Many agnostic theists are deists.
An agnostic atheist lacks a belief in the existence of gods, but doesn’t think they know none exist. Agnostic atheists may be weak or strong agnostics, and weak or strong atheists. Most atheists are agnostic atheists.
A gnostic theist (not to be confused with a Gnostic theist) believes in a deity or deities and thinks they know they exist.
A gnostic atheist believes no deities exist and thinks they know they do not. This is stronger than strong atheism, since it includes a claim of knowledge, but all gnostic atheists are strong atheists.
D.A.N.: “Wow, there sure are a great deal of denominations to keep track of in the Atheist religion.”
Atheism is not a religion, but several religions are atheist, or have atheist schools, like Confucianism, Taoism, Jainism, Buddhism, and Paganism among others.
“Whew, I thought we were bad.”
Those six types of atheism may seem like a lot to you, but that’s several orders of magnitude less than the 33,830 denominations of Christianity counted by the 2001 World Christian Encyclopedia. Wikipedia’s got pages for hundreds of them.
I am glad we can all, at least, agree that there is an atheist religion, with different denominations, like Christianity. Even if on a smaller scale. I concur to that point.
The mere fact there are different denominations though negates the one true way as talked about in Jeremiah 32:38-40. Even we fall short. Its understandable though, because we are all such individual people, not all of us agree on one thing, save Jesus, and yes even Atheists are included in that scenario. I digress.
The Supreme court also agrees with us that Atheists are a part of a religion. The respective groups all are under the umbrella of "No God" so their respective religions are all atheistic. Just like your religion, whatever that might be. OK now that is cleared up, moving on.
Robin: “Atheism is not a religion, but several religions are atheist...”
D.A.N.: “The Supreme court also agrees with us that Atheists are a part of a religion.”
You left out: “for First Amendment purposes”.
That Supreme Court decision, Kaufman v. McCaughtry, also says, “But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all.” (That “none at all” meant atheism.)
Not all atheists are part of a religion.
D.A.N.: “Just like your religion, whatever that might be.”
Don’t have a religion, but as I said in another post here, I’m a hard atheist.
Apropos of nothing, today’s datesetter Harold Camping’s date for the end of the world. Happy Doomsday, everyone!
Where do you think he GOT that idiotic idea in the first place??
The only thing the bible does to discourage Camping's activity is to say that no one can know the day nor the hour. But the nutty belief system itself? The bible supplied all of that.
DAN,
ReplyDelete>> The part I saw on the description of this video “The atheist holds the personal belief that God somehow doesn't exist, a personal belief for which there is no evidence, and to which no valid argument leads, sadly.”
Turning the burden of proof on atheists? Really? It’s not up to us to prove your god doesn’t exist (we can’t prove gods don’t exist the same way theists can’t prove gods exist) because are not the ones who believe in him.
The burden of proof lies on the believer. If he says he believes in god because god exists, then prove god is real first.
Atheists don’t have the obligation to accept the theists’ claims because the theist fails to provide any evidence or argument to support his faith-based claims.
Agnosticism and atheism are not the same thing and they are not mutually exclusive. Agnosticism is about “not knowing gods exist or not because this is a question that is beyond the natural world and no human has the ability to know for certain if gods exist or not”. Atheism is about “lacking belief in gods” ; atheists lack belief in gods/don’t believe gods exist (that depends on the definition each atheist identifies himself the most).
An agnostic doesn’t say “I don’t believe in god”; an agnostic says “I don’t know/I’m not sure if god exists or not” Simple.
Both men are very respectable and have admirable levels of intelligence. Craig is particularly interesting in that he's a shining example of someone intellectually defending theism, something increasingly difficult and unpopular to do. Whether or not he's right, I lack the literacy and understanding to judge, at this point. I do know that I'll be reading and contemplating more of his stuff, though. But that anything either of these men has said has been posted in such a disrespectful, disorienting, embarrassingly biased video or on a trashy, pretentious website such as this is heartbreaking.
ReplyDeleteMichelle,
ReplyDelete>>Turning the burden of proof on atheists? Really? It’s not up to us to prove your god doesn’t exist (we can’t prove gods don’t exist the same way theists can’t prove gods exist) because are not the ones who believe in him.
Its not a "searching" attitude and you know it. Its a positive stance, not searching but REJECTING. You reject the data, evidence, and reasoning.
>>An agnostic doesn’t say “I don’t believe in god”; an agnostic says “I don’t know/I’m not sure if god exists or not” Simple.
Wrong. An agnostic says, I deny the existence of God I know exists. Same as any other unbeliever. It all depends on how hard they are about it. Whether agnostic Atheist, weak Atheist, strong Atheist, or angry Atheist...they are all atheists. They REJECT all evidence for God because they presuppose there is not God to have any evidence for in the first place. Their worldview would HAVE to change for that to happen. Frankly, that would take a miracle. Psst, that is even more evidence of God. If He can change that heart of stone to a heart of flesh, like He did with me, then to deny even that evidence is absurd.
Its not this, its this. Huge difference.
What in this video is referred to as verificationism, is the agnostic position, that whether God exists or not is unkowable and your favorite dictionary Merriam-Webster agrees.
ReplyDelete1ag·nos·tic
noun \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something
So first he takes the Agnostic position and shoves it into a different label, verificationism. Then he splits the athiest position into 2 parts and labels them agnosticism and atheism. A lack of evidence of God is the observation, and the statement there is no God is the conclusion. It's the same reason Greek gods, leprechauns and unicorns and other mythical figures are considered to not exist, a lack of supporting evidence.
>>2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something
ReplyDeleteSo an agnostic is a person who is unwilling to commit to acknowledging the existence of God. Great, we are clear.
Absence of evidence is still not evidence of absence. Discounting evidence because one is fixed that evidence MUST not exist, is the definition of denial.
If the Bible and Jesus are indeed evidence, though rejected, means there is STILL evidence, no matter how flimsy, for the existence of God. So there is NO SUCH A THING as "lack of evidence" for God, no matter how many time you repeat it ad nauseum.
verificationism is not a word, but the description of verificationism fits the definition of agnostic. He is lying about the position that agnostics hold, they do not say the don't believe God exists, they say the existence of God is unknowable or if you prefer the second definition they will not commit to a position about something that is unknowable. They do not say they don't believe in the existence of God, as it says in the video, he is making up words and redefining words to suit his argument.
ReplyDeleteAnd if the Bible is evidence of God, I guess the Hobbit, Lord of the Rings, and Silmarillion are evidence of elves and orcs.
Michelle,
ReplyDelete>>And if the Bible is evidence of God, I guess the Hobbit, Lord of the Rings, and Silmarillion are evidence of elves and orcs.
I have said this many times but mere logical possibility of (x) is not the same as adequate justification for (x). Jesus, Scripture, and nature itself is adequate justification for God's existence that is widely accepted throughout the earth for thousands of years for thousands of generations. This is not an appeal to popularity, its showing you that LotR is not evidence of anything but a story and that is even accepted by the author and creator themselves. You're fallacious argument, apples to oranges, is obvious and sad you're still using it. You're absurd. You are obvious as deny, deny, deny.
You just don't realize or care I suspect, just why the bible and "jesus" are rejected, do you? I've posted before books that show that biblical archeology is not all that (The View from Nebo, the Bible Unearthed, and Out of the Desert) etc. I've listed Judaic sites such as messiahtruth.com and jewsforjudaism.com that show that the "messianic prophecies" in the bible are anything but, and that christ does NOT fulfill what the Torah said would be the "jewish messiah".
ReplyDeleteAs for William Lane Craig, an old acquaintance of yours will be debating him soon.
Sorry Dan, but "nature" itself doesn't point to any such thing. It was people going out in the field who first began to gradually realize that Genesis was wrong. Read "The Creationists" by Ronald Numbers.
ReplyDeleteAbsence of evidence is still not evidence of absence.
ReplyDeleteIt sure as hell is not evidence of existence now, is it?
Discounting evidence because one is fixed that evidence MUST not exist, is the definition of denial.
Can you show that that is how atheists think? Otherwise, you've just set up a strawman.
D.A.N. writes: “Absence of evidence is still not evidence of absence.”
ReplyDeleteNot so.
Take evidence E supporting hypothesis H.
• P(H) means the probability H is true
• P(H|E) means the probability H is true given E
• ¬E means not-E, absence of evidence.
For E to be evidence, P(H|E) > P(H). (After all, if P(H|E) = P(H), then E would offer H no support, and if P(H|E) < P(H), E would be evidence against H.)
So given P(H|E) > P(H), with a couple applications of Bayes’ rule and algebra, we derive P(¬H|¬E) > P(¬H).
If our hypothesis H is “X is present”, then its negation ¬H is “X is not present” (that is, “X is absent”).
Hence, in mathematical terms, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It may not be proof of absence, but it is evidence of absence.
“If the Bible and Jesus are indeed evidence, though rejected, means there is STILL evidence, no matter how flimsy, for the existence of God.”
ReplyDeleteNo better evidence than for Krishna, or for Osiris, or for Ometotl, or thousands of others.
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
If I claim to own a car, that’s so ordinary you probably would take me at my word.
If I claim to own a nuclear missile, you would need more evidence than my say so.
If I claim to own a stargate to a planet in a distant galaxy, you would need evidence of the very highest quality. Even video footage would not be enough.
An immaterial being with magic wish-granting powers that circumvent the laws of physics requires stargate-calibre evidence.
Robin,
ReplyDelete>>An immaterial being with magic wish-granting powers that circumvent the laws of physics requires stargate-calibre evidence.
Of course the mere existence of an entire universe with natural and logical laws is still not "enough" evidence! Even your ability to reason about evidence, or laws, satisfies that "extraordinary evidence" that you require. Let me guess, you will get a shovel to move that goalpost quickly.
There is an extraordinary amount of extraordinary evidence for God's existence even. God has provided it everywhere. God has provided evidence in the stars of the heavens. God has provided evidence in the power of the seas, and the beauty of the forest. God has provided evidence in the intricacy of the human body. God has provided evidence in the course of history. God has provided evidence in the work that He did in the lives of the Israelites. God has provided evidence in the life of his Son and the miracles that were performed in His resurrection. God has provided evidence in the way He judges nations. God has provided evidence in the scriptures, revealing Himself through the prophets and the apostles. God provides evidence when you look at the wonderful harmony of the Bible written over many centuries by many men. God has provided evidence in the way that the Bible itself satisfies the deepest spiritual needs of people. God has provided evidence in the life transforming power of the Bible. We can go on and on.
Moving goalposts will be next:
"In fact, that cannot be evidence for God if he is a naturalist, or an atheist. Because according to him its not possible to have evidence for God. If he is in fact an atheist in terms of his views on reality, then all of these things must be reinterpreted so they are regimented, or will conform to, will comport with that man's naturalism, or atheism." ~bit.ly/stillevidence
Reynold,
ReplyDelete>>As for William Lane Craig, an old acquaintance of yours will be debating him soon.
Brilliant! I really do appreciate that info. Thank you very much.
Please tell me it will be streamed on the internet. Tell me slowly though, don't want to exceed excitement threshold.
If not on the internet, who wants to donate to fund me going there to interview both afterwords and record entire debate?
Takers?
>>Take evidence E supporting hypothesis H.
ReplyDeleteIs there blood leaking out of my ear? I cannot comprehend this yet, but I will keep trying, but something tells me this is another Atheist's Epistemological Lacking
Robin,
ReplyDeleteOK, admittedly, this is beyond my pay grade but...
Where I see a problems is with :
"then its negation ¬H"
How is it possible to have a negation of a hypothesis? Or for that to equal "X is absent"?
Its appears to be a non sequitur here.
After all "X is absent" (¬X) is the hypothesis (H) of the Atheists. Is it not?
DAN,
ReplyDelete>> It’s not a "searching" attitude and you know it. It’s a positive stance, not searching but REJECTING. You reject the data, evidence, and reasoning.
What data? What evidence? What reasoning? You failed at giving data and evidence about your god’s existence. About the reasoning, you gave none. All you came up about the reasoning was flawed and non sense viciously circular reasoning bullshit and asking us in every single debate “how your reasoning about anything is valid?” crap in order to try diverting us from the subject in discussion.
What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence
>> Wrong. An agnostic says, I deny the existence of God I know exists. Same as any other unbeliever. It all depends on how hard they are about it. Whether agnostic Atheist, weak Atheist, strong Atheist, or angry Atheist...they are all atheists. They REJECT all evidence for God because they presuppose there is not God to have any evidence for in the first place.
It’s not wrong. You can look in every single dictionary and all of them will say agnosticism is about not knowing if gods exist or not.
Better yet, ask Pvblivs what agnosticism is and how he defines it since he’s one. I bet he won’t say “I deny the existence of a god I know exists”.
What are you doing here is called intellectual dishonesty . You are changing the definition of the words in order to fit in your misleading opinions about atheism and agnosticism.
Atheism and agnosticism are two different animals and they are not mutually exclusive: agnosticism is “not knowing”; atheism is “lack of belief”. These are the facts; but we all know that facts means nothing to you since you choose to ignore them when they don’t fit in your limited worldview and you change the facts at your liking with the sole purpose to suit your arguments. Let’s face it: you are a reality denier.
>> Their worldview would HAVE to change for that to happen. Frankly, that would take a miracle. Psst, that is even more evidence of God. If He can change that heart of stone to a heart of flesh, like He did with me, then to deny even that evidence is absurd.
Ok, he did this so called miracle to you. Another personal experience…where’s the evidence of that? I just have to take your word for it? Sorry Dan, but I don’t…you might be gullible enough to take people’s words without questioning, but that’s not how I roll.
I don’t have to believe god exists just because you say miracles prove your god exists and “god can change that heart of stone to a heart of flesh, like he did with me…”.
How can I deny an evidence if you failed at showing one?
>> So an agnostic is a person who is unwilling to commit to acknowledging the existence of God. Great, we are clear.
An agnostic is person who is uncertain about the existence or non existence of gods, therefore they prefer not to take a position about believing in some god or not. They are not denying anything (because in order to deny your god we have to believe in him to begin with).
>> Discounting evidence because one is fixed that evidence MUST not exist, is the definition of denial.
No one here ever said evidence must not exist. All we say there’s no concrete and reliable evidence that proves your god is real because theists have failed at showing them, therefore we don’t believe he exists.
>> And if the Bible is evidence of God, I guess the Hobbit, Lord of the Rings, and Silmarillion are evidence of elves and orcs.
MaxFF said that, not me. You addressed your answer to the wrong person.
>> DAN, trying to prove your god is real by linking to posts of your own blog is laughable.
So, Dan in his great big rant to Robin completely ignores all that I've said in my previous reply to him about how archeology sometimes goes against the bible, how the "messianic prophecies" have been debunked, how it happened that those who used to believe in biblical creation lost that belief after they got out in the field, etc.
ReplyDeleteTypical. He even ignores the link I gave which shows that his hero William Craig would, if pressed, ignore the evidence of his own eyes if he saw that the "resurrection" never happened.
Ah, that last link: William Craig would deny evidence from his eyes
ReplyDeleteNow, for that Atheists Epistemological Lacking
D.A.N.,
ReplyDelete“Of course the mere existence of an entire universe with natural and logical laws is still not "enough" evidence!”
Yes. Nothing about the existence of a universe requires a supernatural explanation. Especially a universe where empty space seems to be teeming with particle-antiparticle pairs popping into existence at random and usually instantly annihilating each other.
“Even your ability to reason about evidence, or laws, satisfies that "extraordinary evidence" that you require.”
Nothing about reason requires a supernatural explanation either.
“God has provided evidence in the stars of the heavens. God has provided evidence in the power of the seas, and the beauty of the forest. God has provided evidence in the intricacy of the human body.”
All of which came about by natural forces, not magic.
“God has provided evidence in the course of history.”
We set the course of history.
“God has provided evidence in the work that He did in the lives of the Israelites.”
Like Ganesh has provided evidence in the obstacles he has removed in the lives of Hindus. Bet that kind of evidence doesn’t convince you of Ganesh.
“God has provided evidence in the life of his Son and the miracles that were performed in His resurrection.”
Like Allah provided evidence in the life of Mohammed and the miraculous flying donkey he rode to heaven. Does that convince you of the Qur’an?
“God has provided evidence in the way He judges nations.”
I’m not sure what you mean. Are you crediting earthquakes and tsunamis to God? Natural explanations are more plausible.
“God has provided evidence in the scriptures, revealing Himself through the prophets and the apostles.”
Who are no more credible than thousands of other prophets of competing mythologies.
“God provides evidence when you look at the wonderful harmony of the Bible written over many centuries by many men.”
Ha. That sure doesn’t describe the Bible I’ve read.
“God has provided evidence in the way that the Bible itself satisfies the deepest spiritual needs of people.”
As does the Book of Mormon, the Qur’an, the Bhagavad-Gita... Does the satisfaction of their adherents convince you their holy books are reliable?
“God has provided evidence in the life transforming power of the Bible. We can go on and on.”
I’m sure you can go on all day citing things with perfectly good natural explanations, crediting them to your deity of choice. As could Hindus and Pagans and Sikhs and every other theist. It’s as unconvincing for their deities as it’s unconvincing for yours.
If you want to convince me of supernatural beings with magic powers, show me a veritable miracle.
Michelle,
ReplyDelete>>No one here ever said evidence must not exist. All we say there’s no concrete and reliable evidence that proves your god is real because theists have failed at showing them, therefore we don’t believe he exists.
Great! So now you admit that there is INDEED evidence for God. Just evidence that you reject as reliable. That is a start. I'll take it.
And now Dan twists words again...why don't you SHOW us just how "reliable" your evidence is, instead of just saying that it's evidence that she "rejects as reliable"?
ReplyDeleteRobin,
ReplyDelete>>Especially a universe where empty space seems to be teeming with particle-antiparticle pairs popping into existence at random and usually instantly annihilating each other.
Just wow. So this is testable, verifiable, and repeatable? Otherwise...
>>Nothing about reason requires a supernatural explanation either.
The claim is that God has revealed Himself to EVERYONE, and that this is exposed with every truth claim, every knowledge claim, and even every rational thought you have.
>>All of which came about by natural forces, not magic.
And you KNOW this how?
To clarify: God has provided evidence in the way He judges nations.
>>Ha. That sure doesn’t describe the Bible I’ve read.
Because you may not be logical.
>>Does the satisfaction of their adherents convince you their holy books are reliable?
You mean like the Book of Mormon, the Qur’an that points to the Bible as truth and from God?
>>If you want to convince me of supernatural beings with magic powers, show me a veritable miracle.
So you as a criminal, act as a judge, and place God on trial? That itself would be UN-Biblical. That being said, you have Jesus' Resurrection and many billions of hearts of stone, transformed to hearts of flesh, like myself. That should suffice, otherwise deny if you must.
Especially a universe where empty space seems to be teeming with particle-antiparticle pairs popping into existence at random and usually instantly annihilating each other.
ReplyDeleteJust wow. So this is testable, verifiable, and repeatable? Otherwise...
Is the "resurrection" or "creation week" or any such thing in the bible testable, verifiable, and repeatable? If such was the case, your side wouldn't need bullshit artists like Craig, now would you?
Here's a hint: None of it is, as I suspect Craig knows.
As to what Robin brought up, maybe this is what he meant?
As for Robin being a "criminal"...it's your god who according to his own uh, "word", ordered the deaths of babies in the OT.
Just who is the "criminal" again?
Unless Robin is somehow bloody worse than that, you've really got nothing to say here.
Now, about the book of Mormon and the Koran...the Koran says that Jesus was just a prophet, does it not? And Mormonism is just a cult, is it not? Yet you're using those as "evidences"?
The claim is that God has revealed Himself to EVERYONE, and that this is exposed with every truth claim, every knowledge claim, and even every rational thought you have.
And there's those assumptions again...saying that everything out there is evidence of "your" god.
Why not the Muslim god since you all of a sudden see fit to use their holy book?
Sorry, he has not "revealed" himself to any atheists of any non-believer for that matter. If so, we'd ALL (as in all of humanity) be believers. Perhaps not all "followers" but we'd all believe.
I notice that you've once again ignored where I posted that the bible is shot down by archeology and failed messianic prophecies.
Please Robin, do read that link Dan posted about the bible being "supernatural". It's funny.
D.A.N.,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your willingness and effort to engage my argument, even though it used unfamiliar symbols.
“How is it possible to have a negation of a hypothesis? Or for that to equal "X is absent"?”
The probability of a proposition (A), plus the probability of its negation (¬A), always add up to one. P(A) + P(¬A) = 1.
So if A is "the next card in the deck is a spade", ¬A is "the next card in the deck is not a spade". If the deck has had jokers removed, the probabilities would be 25% + 75% = 100%.
So for a hypothesis like M "there is a monster under the bed", then ¬M is "it is not the case that there is a monster under the bed".
(Or to use the presence/absence language of the aphorism, "the Monster Under the Bed is present"/"the Monster Under the Bed is absent".)
Dan, aren't you using a fallacy here about that "billions" being converted to a religion as being evidence of the truthfulness of that religion? The argument from popularity perhaps? What about the many MORE billions who don't and throughout history who have never believed? Wouldn't that be evidence then that xianity is false?
ReplyDeleteDAN,
ReplyDelete>> Great! So now you admit that there is INDEED evidence for God. Just evidence that you reject as reliable. That is a start. I'll take it.
The dishonest Dan is back and twisting my words again! In nowhere in my comment I said I admit there’s evidence for god and that I reject them as reliable. Again you are twisting my words to better suit yourself.
What I really said was there’s no reliable and concrete evidence that proves god is real because theists failed at showing them, therefore we don’t believe your god is real. Entendeu?
How am I supposed to reject evidences that don’t exist, you silly?
Like I said many times to you the reason why I’m an atheist is because there’s no evidence that proves gods are real.
The only “evidence” you have about your god’s existence is that – according to you - he revealed himself to everyone in stars of the heavens (PS: it’s sky , not “heavens”) in the power of the seas, and the beauty of the forest; in the intricacy of the human body; in the course of history; in the work that He did in the lives of the Israelites; in the life of his Son and the miracles that were performed in His resurrection; in the way He judges nations; in the scriptures, revealing Himself through the prophets and the apostles; when you look at the wonderful harmony of the Bible written over many centuries by many men; in the way that the Bible itself satisfies the deepest spiritual needs of people; in the life transforming power of the Bible.
Come on, me and Robin refuted you on that one.
>> DAN to Robin: So you as a criminal, act as a judge, and place God on trial? That itself would be UN-Biblical.
Dodging the question again? Robin is not putting your god on trial, he’s just asking you to prove there’s a magical being with supernatural powers and to show him a verifiable miracle. How come that is putting your god on trial?
> That being said, you have Jesus' Resurrection and many billions of hearts of stone, transformed to hearts of flesh, like myself. That should suffice, otherwise deny if you must.
DAN, that doesn’t suffice. No one here has to believe you, unless you have some other new concrete and verifiable evidence about Jesus’ resurrection and the many billions of hearts of stones transformed to hearts of flesh, the miracles supposedly made by your god and your Jesus, etc.
Again, no personal experiences, no personal revelations, without quoting the bible and without religious preaching, since all that are not proof of anything about god/Jesus unless you have concrete, verifiable and reliable evidences to back them all up.
Robin: “Especially a universe where empty space seems to be teeming with particle-antiparticle pairs popping into existence at random and usually instantly annihilating each other.”
ReplyDeleteDAN: “Just wow. So this is testable, verifiable, and repeatable? Otherwise...”
Pair production has measurable, verifiable effects, like the Casimir effect and Hawking radiation.
DAN: “The claim is that God has revealed Himself to EVERYONE, and that this is exposed with every truth claim, every knowledge claim, and even every rational thought you have.”
I know this to be untrue; your god has not revealed himself to me.
Robin: “All of which came about by natural forces, not magic.”
DAN: “And you KNOW this how?”
I can't be 100% certain that stars, seas, forests, and human bodies did not come about by magic. But my conclusion, that stars, seas, forests, and human bodies came about by nature instead, accords with my experience and with scientific facts and natural law. Nature is a far more parsimonious explanation than magic.
DAN: “God has provided evidence in the way that the Bible itself satisfies the deepest spiritual needs of people.”
Robin: “As does the Book of Mormon, the Qur’an, the Bhagavad-Gita... Does the satisfaction of their adherents convince you their holy books are reliable?”
DAN: “You mean like the Book of Mormon, the Qur’an that points to the Bible as truth and from God?”
Yeah, those books. Do you consider all three books harmonious and true? I think not.
Many people feel their spiritual needs satisfied by the Qur’an, but this does not provide evidence that the Qur’an is true, only that the Qur’an is popular.
Robin: “If you want to convince me of supernatural beings with magic powers, show me a veritable miracle.”
DAN: “So you as a criminal, act as a judge, and place God on trial? That itself would be UN-Biblical.”
I merely asked for evidence of the supernatural. I didn’t accuse God of any crimes here. (In the Hebrew Bible, Yahweh commits many atrocities, but that’s a different topic for a different post.)
Robin,
ReplyDeleteDAN: “The claim is that God has revealed Himself to EVERYONE, and that this is exposed with every truth claim, every knowledge claim, and even every rational thought you have.”
>>I know this to be untrue; your god has not revealed himself to me.
Enter one of my favorite cartoons.
That being said, how do you know your reasoning of that is even valid?
>>Nature is a far more parsimonious explanation than magic.
But obviously that's not absolutely true is it Robin? See when you reject absolute truth, not only do you refute yourself, all you are left with is arbitrary opinion, and sorry, but for the purposes of this discussion, I really don't care about your opinion.
How do you account for ANY absolutes in your worldview? How can you know ANYTHING to be absolutely true?
>> I didn’t accuse God of any crimes here.
You mean besides His existence? That is what you're judging here. You are placing God on trial to see if He is worthy of your praise.
>>In the Hebrew Bible, Yahweh commits many atrocities, but that’s a different topic for a different post.
Before we address that you have made some assumptions of your point that you will have to defend before the claim is even valid. Like Razi Zacharias said that I highlight in one of my posts, you have just invoked a moral law, or standard in raising that claim that your worldview cannot account for. That is your presupposition of the claim, is it not? Otherwise, the claim self destructs.
Robin,
ReplyDeleteOh, speaking of pressing the point to Atheists...
I can understand that H(x) + H(¬x) = 1 as the Hypothesis is either God or no God. What I do not understand is your insertion of ¬H. Its like saying ¬P and ¬ Proposition. Still a non sequitur.
Its like saying there is no "meaning" in a meaningful declarative sentence. It contradicts, its fallacious. Understandable for Atheists. :7p
DAN: “The claim is that God has revealed Himself to EVERYONE...”
ReplyDeleteRobin: “I know this to be untrue; your god has not revealed himself to me.”
DAN: “Enter one of my favorite cartoons.”
Cute! However, sunrises happen every day. Something that would’ve happened anyway isn’t much of a sign:
“God, if you want me to eat my sister's chocolate cake, um, move that clock’s minute hand!”
(waits a minute) (clock’s minute hand advances a minute)
“Thanks, God!” (scarfs cake)
DAN: “That being said, how do you know your reasoning of that is even valid?”
Let me phrase my reasoning in a syllogism:
1. If a god made itself known to me, I would know it exists.
2. I don’t know that any god exists.
3. Therefore, a god has not made itself known to me.
This uses a valid logical form, “If A then B. Not B. Therefore, not A.”
Robin: “Nature is a far more parsimonious explanation than magic.”
DAN: “But obviously that's not absolutely true is it Robin? See when you reject absolute truth, not only do you refute yourself, all you are left with is arbitrary opinion...”
It’s not obvious to me that’s not absolutely true? I don’t reject absolute truth.
DAN: “How do you account for ANY absolutes in your worldview? How can you know ANYTHING to be absolutely true?”
Something true in objective reality is absolutely true. For example, scientists think our planet is about 4.5 billion years old. Young-earth creationists think our planet is about 6,000-10,000 years old. Regardless of what anybody thinks, there is an absolute truth, a correct answer.
The best method we have for making what we believe to be true conform to what is absolutely true is systematic testing and verification: science.
Robin: “I didn’t accuse God of any crimes here.”
DAN: “You mean besides His existence? That is what you're judging here.”
You can judge things other than crimes. A sporting event, for example.
DAN: “You are placing God on trial to see if He is worthy of your praise.”
No, our issue at hand is whether there is any god to begin with. Until a god is revealed to me, it seems premature to discuss whether it is praiseworthy.
Robin: “In the Hebrew Bible, Yahweh commits many atrocities, but that’s a different topic for a different post.”
DAN: “Like Razi Zacharias said that I highlight in one of my posts, you have just invoked a moral law, or standard in raising that claim that your worldview cannot account for.”
Though I have a lot to say about Yahweh’s immoral behavior in the Hebrew Bible, that topic would surely derail our conversation about evidence. Let’s not change the subject. We can come back to it later.
DAN:
ReplyDelete“I can understand that H(x) + H(¬x) = 1 as the Hypothesis is either God or no God.”
P(x), not H(x). P(x) means probability of x. The H in P(H) was just a variable for an arbitrary proposition.
“What I do not understand is your insertion of ¬H.”
It’s the logical negation of H. Like H with “it is not the case that” in front of it.
A concrete example might make things clearer:
Let’s say that H is "my mother is home" and E is "her car is in the driveway".
P(H|E) > P(H) in this case means:
P(mom’s home|her car in the driveway) > P(mom’s home)
The chances of her being home are increased by
the presence of her car in the driveway.
It also follows that P(¬H|¬E) > P(¬H) which means
P(mom’s not home|her car not in the driveway) > P(mom’s not home)
The chances of her not being home are increased by the absence of her car in the driveway.
The absence of her car does not constitute proof that she’s not home. But its absence is evidence that she’s not home.
Robin,
ReplyDelete>>However, sunrises happen every day.
>.< The sun does not rise at all. Science fail.
>>Something that would’ve happened anyway isn’t much of a sign:
Like evolution?
>>1. If a god made itself known to me, I would know it exists.
>>2. I don’t know that any god exists.
>>3. Therefore, a god has not made itself known to me.
Well, if you don't see the futility of explaining something to someone who cannot account for knowledge, I can't help that. You see, without such an account you can't justify knowing that God has not already revealed Himself to you and answered all of your questions.
>>I don’t reject absolute truth.
Of course you don't, but can you account for it in your atheistic (relativistic) worldview? Care to try?
>>Regardless of what anybody thinks, there is an absolute truth, a correct answer.
I agree but that is because it comports with my worldview. The entire atheistic worldview is necessarily based upon a relativistic worldview, and due to that, they must necessarily deny the existence of absolutes. These obviously ridiculous claims stem from the fact that they do not believe in a universal, abstract higher authority that has defined absolutes.
In summation:
The only possible way that we can know anything for certain is by Divine revelation from One who knows everything. It is the Christian position that God has revealed some things to us so that we can be certain of them.
Now, your turn. How is it possible for you to know anything for certain?
>>It’s the logical negation of H. Like H with “it is not the case that” in front of it.
ReplyDeleteYea I understand that but in your case H is Hypothesis. My point was that how can there be a “it is not the case that” of the Hypothesis? Get my point?
Like Geddy Lee of Rush pointed out "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."
The hypothesis of no God is still a hypothesis NOT (¬H) was my original point.
Dan
ReplyDeleteI agree but that is because it comports with my worldview. The entire atheistic worldview is necessarily based upon a relativistic worldview, and due to that, they must necessarily deny the existence of absolutes. These obviously ridiculous claims stem from the fact that they do not believe in a universal, abstract higher authority that has defined absolutes.
Bullshit. Ever hear of mathematics? And also, the laws of logic, though you assert came from your god, did not. They were first figured out by the greeks through simple thought experiments and observation.
Good grief. This "trinity" bullshit of xians itself contradicts the law of non-contradiction.
Jesus can't also be god for the simple reason that even the bible itself portrays "god" and Jesus speaking about each other at Jesus' baptism. That voice from heaven saying that Jesus is his beloved son and stuff. And Jesus asking god why he's abandoned him when Jesus was crucified. Why would he talk to HIMSELF like that??
Besides, isn't he supposed to have known why?
Now, where is the evidence for your claim that it's YOUR god who's "defined absolutes"?
The only possible way that we can know anything for certain is by Divine revelation from One who knows everything. It is the Christian position that God has revealed some things to us so that we can be certain of them.
And he spins his wheels again....assertion without evidence. Is Dan saying that "god" communed with him in the womb in order to let Dan know that he'd be able to trust his senses once he was born? Poppycock.
In this very thread, William Lane Craig was shown to be a liar. Rather than take down the video and apologize for the mistake, which would be the honest thing to do, you not only keep the video up, but continue to post more links to him.
ReplyDeleteIf you have no interest in the truth, there's no reason to discuss anything with you.
Reynold,
ReplyDelete>>Ever hear of mathematics?
If I wrote the number 2 on a chalk board and asked you what it was. You might say it was "the number 2" but it isn't, if I erased it you could still use 2. Its a written representation of the number but the number 2 is universal and immaterial. The nonbeliever cannot account for universal, immaterial concepts without presupposing God. You are presupposing your reasoning is valid. How do you account for immaterial concepts in a material universe?
>>They were first figured out by the greeks through simple thought experiments and observation.
Of reality of laws that already existed. What is your basis is for assuming that logic has not changed? How would you know if logic changed if it had? Was logic used in understanding the observations which were used in the formulation of logical laws? D'oh!
>>Good grief. This "trinity" bullshit of xians itself contradicts the law of non-contradiction.
How so? Since logic is a reflection of the way God thinks, and since God is triune, The Triune God is logical. God cannot contradict His own nature. Its simply a Non Sequitur.
>>Jesus can't also be god for the simple reason that even the bible itself portrays "god" and Jesus speaking about each other at Jesus' baptism.
I don't discuss Scripture with those that don't hold it as authoritative. That aside, does that not show the evidence of a truine God? (that was rhetorical)
>>That voice from heaven saying that Jesus is his beloved son and stuff.
He is.
>>And Jesus asking god why he's abandoned him when Jesus was crucified. Why would he talk to HIMSELF like that??
*Tisk *tisk You hath not been to Bible study in a while, at least not to mine.
It was an announcement of Prophecy fulfillment, dude! I thought you knew this? Oh that's right, you have not repented yet. 2 Timothy 2:24-26
Let me help.
Matthew 27:46 Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani (My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?)
Read ALL of Psalm 22 See it? "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?... a company of evildoers encircles me; they have pierced my hands and feet...they divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots..."
Again I did not KNOW this UNTIL I repented and trusted in Him.
>>Is Dan saying that "god" communed with him in the womb in order to let Dan know that he'd be able to trust his senses once he was born?
Psalm 22:9-10 So there is that...
Robin: “Something that would’ve happened anyway isn’t much of a sign:”
ReplyDeleteDAN: “Like evolution?”
Probably couldn’t wait long enough for that one, anyway.
DAN: “Well, if you don't see the futility of explaining something to someone who cannot account for knowledge, I can't help that.”
If that’s futile, then why do we have kindergartens?
Robin: “I don’t reject absolute truth.”
DAN: “Of course you don't, but can you account for it in your atheistic (relativistic) worldview? Care to try?”
Sure. As I wrote right after that:
Robin: “Something true in objective reality is absolutely true. For example, scientists think our planet is about 4.5 billion years old. Young-earth creationists think our planet is about 6,000-10,000 years old. Regardless of what anybody thinks, there is an absolute truth, a correct answer.”
Reality accounts for absolute truth.
DAN: “The entire atheistic worldview is necessarily based upon a relativistic worldview, and due to that, they must necessarily deny the existence of absolutes.”
That is incorrect. For example, I do not deny the existence of absolute truth. You even quoted me saying it.
DAN: “The only possible way that we can know anything for certain is by Divine revelation from One who knows everything.”
Not even then, I think. A god could give you false revelations.
DAN: “It is the Christian position that God has revealed some things to us so that we can be certain of them.”
“The” Christian position? Are you sure no Christians have a different position?
DAN: “How is it possible for you to know anything for certain?”
We can know very little with 100% certainty, things proven in abstract realms of math and logic. My entire life could be a simulation. We could be in The Matrix. But for practical purposes, I can be certain enough.
For me, all knowledge is provisional, and subject to revision in light of contrary evidence. My ideal is to be like a leaf blown by the winds of evidence.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDAN,
ReplyDelete>> "Robin: Nature is a far more parsimonious explanation than magic."
"DAN: But obviously that's not absolutely true is it Robin?"
Care to prove that claim of yours, Dan?
As we pointed out to you before natural events are explained by natural phenomena; supernatural phenomena caused by some supernatural entity don’t explain natural events because they belong to different/opposing fields: supernatural is based on faith alone, which is not evidence; the explanations for natural events are based on scientific evidences.
>> "Robin: I didn’t accuse God of any crimes here."
"Dan: You mean besides His existence? That is what you're judging here. You are placing God on trial to see if He is worthy of your praise."
Robin is not judging god’s existence; he’s just asking you to prove it your god is not an imaginary magic sky daddy. Care to try or you will keep with the dodging?
>> The sun does not rise at all. Science fail.
Sarcasm mode On: Science fails indeed! The Sun “rises” and “sets” because the greek god Helios flies with chariot of fire crossing the sky. Sarcasm mode: Off
For fuck’s sake, Dan! Are you that dumb? Thanks to scientific discoveries we know the sun doesn’t move at all and science explains why the sun “rises” and “sets” everyday. Why don’t you stop denying reality for a while? You might actually learn something!
>> Before we address that you have made some assumptions of your point that you will have to defend before the claim is even valid. Like Razi Zacharias said that I highlight in one of my posts, you have just invoked a moral law, or standard in raising that claim that your worldview cannot account for. That is your presupposition of the claim, is it not? Otherwise, the claim self destructs.
About the atrocities committed by your god we can give you – again - entire passages from your bible to prove our claim. But since you suffer from a sick moral relativism by defending and/or sugarcoating awful and violent acts such as mass murder, genocides, rape, infanticide and the killing of fetuses when is done/commanded by your god, you will just ignore it/change the subject/shift the burden on us/dodge the issue/act with dishonesty by twisting everything we say.
>> Evolution explains how life evolves. It has nothing to do with the belief in miracles and sure has nothing to do with the belief in your god or any other gods for that matter.
>> I agree but that is because it comports with my worldview. The entire atheistic worldview is necessarily based upon a relativistic worldview, and due to that, they must necessarily deny the existence of absolutes. These obviously ridiculous claims stem from the fact that they do not believe in a universal, abstract higher authority that has defined absolutes.
There’s no more relativistic worldview than the one you have Dan. You speak every time about the existence of absolutes - especially when is about morality - supposedly given by some supernatural higher authority and yet the morality you have is relative to the core. You consider the same vile acts to be both good/justifiable and bad/unnecessary at the same time depending on who does or commands it to be done.
>> I don't discuss Scripture with those that don't hold it as authoritative.
You are acting like Sye’s parrot just to dodge our questions when we show the atrocities and the contradictions in your bible; that’s just pathetic.
Not too mention you quote your bible over and over again when is convenient for you.
What leads me to 2 questions:
1 - Why do you say you don't discuss the scriptures with people who don't hold them as authoritative, but you quote your bible to us anytime you have the chance?
2 - Are you not going against your own - I mean - Sye's words by doing that?
Its a written representation of the number but the number 2 is universal and immaterial.
ReplyDeleteSo? Just because we can imagine things and have ideas that don't have physical form does not mean that your god has to exist. He could just be another imagined thing. The number "2" could just as easily have been given another "name" back when it was first mathematically came up with. All the numbers could have. The relationship between the numbers would still be the same.
Would your god still be the same if he had a different name? After all, you don't say which god has to be "presupposed" now, do you? How can you, using this "immaterial/material" crap argument, narrow things down to YOUR god?
There are a whole bunch of assumptions going into what this god of yours is, and how he acts. He's supposed to even have taken physical form, something that numbers can't really do.
He's supposed to have acted with the physical realm. If so, that can be tested or at least checked.
The nonbeliever cannot account for universal, immaterial concepts without presupposing God. You are presupposing your reasoning is valid. How do you account for immaterial concepts in a material universe?
"Immaterial concepts" are able to be figured out with our physical brains. Is god just a concept then, with no basis in physical reality? Is he just a fictional character who's never physically interacted with the material world?
Jesus can't also be god for the simple reason that even the bible itself portrays "god" and Jesus speaking about each other at Jesus' baptism.
ReplyDeleteI don't discuss Scripture with those that don't hold it as authoritative. That aside, does that not show the evidence of a truine God? (that was rhetorical)
As I say below, no. Also, remember when jesus was praying at gethsemane or wherever, that he didn't want to do this, he ended the prayer with something like: "I want your will, not mine", implying that they even had different wants. Not something that could apply if he was only one being.
That voice from heaven saying that Jesus is his beloved son and stuff.
He is.
It also shows that they are two different people occupying two different places in space at the same time.
And Jesus asking god why he's abandoned him when Jesus was crucified. Why would he talk to HIMSELF like that??
*Tisk *tisk You hath not been to Bible study in a while, at least not to mine.
It was an announcement of Prophecy fulfillment, dude!
Think, Dan...if god and jesus were really ONE person, and was capable of knowing the future, don't you think that he would have arranged it so that the so-called "prophetic verse" would make sure that, in "fulfilling" this prophecy later on, that Jesus would not have to indicate that he and god were different people when in actually they were not?
What I suspect really happened: To fit the script, bible writers just said that Jesus said those words...while not realizing that by doing so they would be shooting down this "trinity" idea of theirs.
I thought you knew this? Oh that's right, you have not repented yet. 2 Timothy 2:24-26
ReplyDeleteThat verse says that god will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth.
Don't really know if that means before or after acknowledging this "truth" but the bible elsewhere as Dan showed us, advocates that kind of circular reasoning where one must accept first, and then believe. A logical impossibility.
Again I did not KNOW this UNTIL I repented and trusted in Him.
This is just stupid...you can't actually trust in something until one KNOWS, or fully believes. Otherwise, it's just called "hope".
Not the same thing.
When Dan admits that even he didn't fully believe until he accepted, all he's admitting is that he took a crapshoot...something I wager most atheists have tried, as I have.
Read ALL of Psalm 22
Psalm 22 is old, refuted news, Dan.
Check out this link starting at Part II -- Psalm 22. You'll learn things like the following
...lot of stuff left out...
Thirdly, we are dealing with a mistranslation. What you see for the word "pierced" is translated from the Hebrew "ka'ari," which means "like a lion." This word is used again in that very same Psalm:
Psalm 22:21 Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns. (KJV)
Odd, that KJV would translate the very same word as "pierced" in verse 16, but as lion in verse 21. I suppose if the word really did mean "pierce" then verse 21 should read "Save me from the pierced mouth" but of course, that makes no sense.
...and on and on...
Is Dan saying that "god" communed with him in the womb in order to let Dan know that he'd be able to trust his senses once he was born?
Psalm 22:9-10 So there is that...
Dan, are you saying that a verse that xians have always tried to apply to Jesus himself now all of a sudden applies to everyone?
Of reality of laws that already existed. What is your basis is for assuming that logic has not changed?
ReplyDeleteCan you show how they could change??
How would you know if logic changed if it had? Was logic used in understanding the observations which were used in the formulation of logical laws? D'oh!
Look who's talking, presupper. You can go to Stephen Law's blog and ask him this question since I don't know how the greeks or whoever originally derived the laws of logic. I suspect it was just observing how things, including reasoning, worked.
Maybe you should take a philosophy course.
Good grief. This "trinity" bullshit of xians itself contradicts the law of non-contradiction.
How so?
One being can't be in two different places at once and talk to himself from those different places as if he was different people (ex: jesus prayer in the garden, god's voice during jesus baptism, etc)
Since logic is a reflection of the way God thinks,
Evidence please...since the trinity contradicts the law of non-contradiction that premise of yours is shot down.
...and since God is triune, The Triune God is logical. God cannot contradict His own nature. Its simply a Non Sequitur.
That's why I pointed out the problem with the trinity. You people shot yourselves down when your originators came up with that idea.
D.A.N. writes to Reynold:
ReplyDeleteDAN: “If I wrote the number 2 on a chalk board and asked you what it was. You might say it was "the number 2" but it isn’t, if I erased it you could still use 2. Its a written representation of the number but the number 2 is universal and immaterial.”
No, it isn’t. 2 is an abstraction sapient beings, like humans and dolphins, are capable of drawing from pairs of any material things from apples to zebras.
But 2 could not be universal. Until sapient beings evolved to conceive of numbers, the idea existed nowhere in our universe.
Nor is 2 immaterial. Physically, your concept of 2 is an electrochemical pattern of firing synapses in your brain. We teach our children to form this concept, and associate it with a shared label like “2” or “二”. This is part of our language, a collection of shared ideas we use to communicate.
DAN: “The nonbeliever cannot account for universal, immaterial concepts without presupposing God.”
Concepts are neither universal nor immaterial.
DAN: “Since logic is a reflection of the way God thinks, and since God is triune, The Triune God is logical.”
3 = 1 would not be a reflection of a logical mind.
That's a better way of putting it, Robin
ReplyDeleteReynold: “And Jesus asking god why he's abandoned him when Jesus was crucified. Why would he talk to HIMSELF like that??”
ReplyDeleteReynold: “What I suspect really happened: To fit the script, bible writers just said that Jesus said those words...while not realizing that by doing so they would be shooting down this "trinity" idea of theirs.”
Reynold,
Bible scholars have a better explanation. When those gospels were written, a trinity doctrine had not been invented yet.
Second century Greek apologists associated Jesus with their prechristian concept of “logos”, a second, subservient divine person begotten before creation.
The roots of trinitarianism began when a Spirit was added to the mix, a third entity to tie together the Father and the Son, which were still regarded as separate. Ceremonies began to replace invoking Jesus’s name (as in baptisms in Acts) to a three-fold invocation.
It wasn't until the latter half of the fourth century that trinitarians began saying the three eternal persons were coeternal, coequal, and cosubstantial. God and Jesus were two parts of a three-in-one.
The Christian Bible is an anthology of books written across centuries by various men with various different ideas about God.
Hey DA, I thought you would benefit from this post:
ReplyDeleteThe Shallow, Self-refuting, Incoherent, and Illogical Thinking of `Agnositc` ~ Vincent Bugliosi
Papa,
ReplyDeleteNice, but in the title its 'agnostic' not "agnositc"
Mr. Craig makes the mistake of assuming the definition of atheism comes from the many views of people who belong to the category. This is similar to if, we use an example of Santa Clause, a child putting forward the argument that something is amiss about those who don't believe because some kids say there definitely isn't one, and kids keep changing what exactly they mean by not believing in Santa.
ReplyDeleteThe crux of the definition of Atheism is a lack of belief. If you don't believe in god, you are an atheist. It is as simple as that, but theologians cannot make an argument that bolsters their faith if they just leave it as that. That is why you see it changed to "Atheism is the DENIAL of god" or "Atheism is the BELIEF that there is no god."
Some atheists may have certainty that there is no god, but the defining feature of atheism is lack of belief.
As to agnosticism, it is not weak atheism. It is the (correct) position that the supernatural, particularly god, is unknowable. Once you can admit that, you can engage in intellectual honesty.
Transgene,
ReplyDelete>>The crux of the definition of Atheism is a lack of belief.
That just is not true, and this is what intellectual dishonesty is all about. There is indeed a belief, a belief of no God. Its a positive stance here. You cannot claim that God does not exist because there is lack of evidence. That would be fallacious. It is not an appeal to ignorance situation. You're stuck here. You cannot say there is evidence of no God, without having to be forced to provide some, and in that same breath you cannot say there is no God because there is lack of evidence. Because to deny the Bible, Jesus, and nature is just that, denial not 'lack'.
The dictionary got it right and its 'disbelief', the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true. There is nothing 'lacking' here.
Its not this.
Its this!
Its a positive stance and you fully know it. Its understandable that you even DENY this fact. That worldview of yours demands it.
DAN: “There is indeed a belief, a belief of no God. Its a positive stance here.”
ReplyDeleteA minority of atheists, called hard atheists or gnostic atheists, do have that belief. But most are agnostic atheists who do not take that stance.
DAN: “You cannot claim that God does not exist because there is lack of evidence. That would be fallacious.”
Yes, that would be fallacious, if any atheist were actually claiming that. Instead, atheists often say, “There is no reason to believe any gods exist, because there is lack of evidence.”
DAN: “Because to deny the Bible, Jesus, and nature is just that, denial not 'lack'.”
Nobody here denied nature, but nature cannot provide evidence of the supernatural.
If you admit the Bible as evidence, then
• The Bhagavad Gītā is “evidence” of Lord Krishna.
• The Egyptian Book of the Dead is “evidence” of Osiris.
• The Popol Vuh is “evidence” of Gukumatz.
Just like those books of ancient myths do not provide adequate evidence of those gods, so too your book of ancient myth does not provide adequate evidence of Jehovah.
Evidence is also lacking for a historical Jesus, who may be a purely legendary figure who never existed at all, like King Arthur. No contemporaneous evidence exists of this alleged Nazarene’s life, just anonymous hearsay decades-removed accounts copied and copied and copied and found centuries later. (Speaking of Nazareth, archeologists have found that the village of Nazareth did not even exist in the first century A.D.)
We have far stronger evidence, tribunals with contemporaneous sworn eyewitness testimony, that people in Salem, Massachusetts were proven to have committed, and executed for performing, magical acts of witchcraft. Nevertheless, we should not believe those women were actually witches.
Because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Witchcraft requires stargate-calibre evidence.
To forestall a possible misinterpretation: By “witchcraft”, I meant real magic. By “witches”, I meant users of real magic. I do believe in Wiccans, but I don’t believe they perform real magic.
ReplyDeleteDAN,
ReplyDelete>> That just is not true, and this is what intellectual dishonesty is all about. There is indeed a belief, a belief of no God. It’s a positive stance here.
Intellectual dishonesty is when someone changes facts in order to fit his or her arguments. Examples of intellectual dishonesty:
1 - In the video saying that agnosticism means "I don't believe in god" when - in fact - agnosticism means the existence/non existence of gods is unknowable.
2 - In the video saying atheism means "I assert there is no god" when - in fact - atheism is the lack of belief in gods.
3 - DAN saying atheism itself is a religion when - in fact - atheism doesn't have what's necessary to be a religion which are: the belief in the existence of divine entity (ies) and the commitment, trust and faith towards this divine entity (ies) through religious rituals and ceremonies;
4 - DAN saying atheism is a belief there's no god when - in fact - atheism is not a belief system; atheism is the lack of belief in gods.
>>You cannot claim that God does not exist because there is lack of evidence. That would be fallacious. It is not an appeal to ignorance situation.
We never claimed to know god doesn't exist because there's no evidence. We say we lack belief in gods because there's no evidence they exist.
>> You cannot say there is evidence of no God, without having to be forced to provide some, and in that same breath you cannot say there is no God because there is lack of evidence.
Shifting the burden of proof on us, again? Tsk tsk tsk.
It's not up to us to prove your god doesn't exist for 3 reasons:
1 - We never claimed your god doesn't exist. All we say is that we don't believe he exists due the lack of evidence.
2 - We can't prove god doesn't exist because: A) it's not possible to prove a negative; B) we can't prove your god doesn't exist the same way you can't prove he does.
3 - It's not up to atheists to prove your god doesn't exist (since we never claimed knowing for sure your god doesn't exist); it's up to theists - in that case, you - to prove he does (since you claimed to know for sure your god exists)
>> The dictionary got it right and its 'disbelief', the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true. There is nothing 'lacking' here.
But there is also dictionary which defines atheism as "the lack of belief in gods" such as here text but you chose to ignore that definition because it doesn't fit the erroneous opinion you have about what atheism is.
It's one thing to disagree with a definition of a word because it doesn't represent you; another thing completely different is claiming that definition is wrong because you don't agree with it and decide to invent one yourself in order to fit your arguments (which is intellectually dishonest)
>> Its a positive stance and you fully know it. It’s understandable that you even DENY this fact. That worldview of yours demands it.
Atheism doesn't demand anything. We don't deny your god; in order to deny your god we have to believe he exists and we don't.
The only reason why we lack belief in the existence of gods is due the lack of evidence.
As I said before atheists don’t have the obligation to accept the theist's claims because the theist fails to provide any evidence or argument to support his faith-based claims..
You failed to provide any evidence that your god exists. The "so called evidences" you gave about your god's existence (text) are evidences for other things, not for the existence of your god or any other gods.
Robin,
ReplyDelete>>A minority of atheists, called hard atheists or gnostic atheists, do have that belief. But most are agnostic atheists who do not take that stance.
The term "agnostic atheists" is oxymoronic. You cannot be both "unknowable" AND " rejection of" at the same time in the same way. Its contradictory at its core.
>>Just like those books of ancient myths do not provide adequate evidence of those gods, so too your book of ancient myth does not provide adequate evidence of Jehovah.
That is called an equivocation fallacy because the Bible is written as a historical narrative, the examples you gave cannot claim that, as the Bible does indeed.
>>Evidence is also lacking for a historical Jesus, who may be a purely legendary figure who never existed at all, like King Arthur.
You're is pure denial now. There is Overwhelming Evidence of Jesus' existence.
You cannot discount the Bible, it is a very integral part of our history as cherished antiquity. You have heard of Julius Caesar and I am sure you believe that he existed, right? Well there were 10 manuscripts of antiquity that explained who he was as we know him today. 10 that is it, in one language, everything we know today about him came from just those 10 manuscripts, with the earliest one dating to 1,000 years after the original autograph.
By contrast, the New Testament antiquity of the Bible (with all its information about Jesus) was claimed to be written between 40 A.D. and 100 A.D. and there are 5,000+ known copies in Greek, 10,000 in Latin and 9,300 in other languages. They were written while many of the apostles were still alive and could be verified.
Dr. F. F. Bruce, the late Ryland’s Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at the University of Manchester, asserts of the New Testament: "There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament."
Professor Bruce further comments, "The evidence for our New Testament writings is ever so much greater than the evidence for many writings of classical writers, the authenticity of which no one dreams of questioning. And if the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt."
Your presuppositions though, will determine if you will accept documented historical proof or not.
DAN,
ReplyDelete>>The term "agnostic atheists" is oxymoronic. You cannot be both "unknowable" AND " rejection of" at the same time in the same way. Its contradictory at its core.
No, sweety. Being an agnostic atheist is not oxymoronic since the two words have different meanings. Agnostic is about "not having knowledge", atheism is about "lack of belief". The keywords here is knowledge for agnosticism and belief for atheism. What would be considered an oxymoron if I claimed - for example and if existed such a thing - to be theist atheist since I can't have belief and lack belief in gods at the same time: or I believe in gods or I don't; there's no middle ground or being both altogether.
I consider myself to be an agnostic atheist because I don't know if gods exist or not (agnostic) but I lack belief in their existence due the lack of evidence (atheist).
Again, you are being intellectually dishonest by inventing meanings to terms you know nothing about just to fit your arguments.
>> That is called an equivocation fallacy because the Bible is written as a historical narrative, the examples you gave cannot claim that, as the Bible does indeed.
I don't remember who wrote it, but I'll use the example someone who posted on your blog where he or she said: the myth of Romulus and Remus was written as historical narrative by a roman historian. Following your reasoning, the story of Romulus and Remus is not a myth; it really happened, the twins were fed by a she-wolf after being left to die.
An atheist is someone who believes that no gods exist. It is much the same way that I "don't believe in the Loch Ness monster" because I believe it does not exist. Now, if there were compelling evidence, my belief might change. And, if there were compelling evidence, the beliefs of atheists might change. But someone who is undecided on whether there exist one or more gods is not an atheist. Babies are not atheists. Dogs and cats are not atheists. Plants are not atheists. And rocks are not atheists.
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing wrong with holding the belief that there are no gods. To date, there is no compelling evidence that there are. But playing along with "oh, no, we just lack a belief is as dishonest as anything Dan does." There is nothing wrong with atheism. (It may or may not be materially wrong. But we have no evidence to decide this.)
Mhich:
When you finished your statement with "due the lack of evidence," you showed that you had, in fact, drawn a conclusion. No matter how many times you say you "lack belief," you don't lack a belief; you have a belief. YOu believe that there are no gods. You may consider the possibility that you are wrong, just as I consider the possibility that I am wrong about faries not existing. But I am not ashamed to say that I have a positive belief that there are no faries.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete[Edited for typos]
ReplyDeleteJeez, not this shit again... We went through this ad nauseum on another post and I have no real wish to do it all over again.
I agree with the statement:
"I do not believe that God(s) exist."
I do not agree with the statement:
"I believe that no God(s) exist".
There is no active belief in the first statement, there is, instead, a lack of belief. In the second statement there is a positive belief that no God(s) exist.
There is a difference ... and yet both are positions that people who self identify as "atheist" hold and both are covered under the definition of atheism.
You can argue that the definition is wrong if you like - along with the multitude of people who like to argue over whther you should use implicit/explicit/weak/strong/positive/negative etc... as qualifiers - but that won't stop the current definition for atheism in general covering both cases.
Cats, dogs, babies and rocks are irrelevant. As far as I'm aware no atheist here has claimed that cats, dogs, babies or rocks are atheists and, until a cat, dog, baby or rock chooses to join in and self identify with a philosophical position they will remain irrelevant IMO.
It also doesn't follow that because one holds a positive belief in the non-existence of one thing (fairies) that they MUST hold the same position about other things (God(s), ghosts, aliens etc...)
Pvblivs
ReplyDelete>> When you finished your statement with "due the lack of evidence," you showed that you had, in fact, drawn a conclusion.
Did I ever say that I didn't draw a conclusion? No. I said many times here to you and DAN the reason why I am an atheist is because there's no evidence that proves gods exist, therefore I lack belief in their existence.
You are an agnostic because you came to the conclusion that the existence/non existence of gods are unknowable.
What you don't seem to understand is I don't have a belief that gods don't exist as you say I do because:
a)is not the definition of atheism that represents me and
b) atheism is not a belief.
Even though I don't know if gods exist or not, I lack belief in their existence.
Considering the dictionaries, I've seem many definitions for atheism (not in that particular order): disbelief in gods; doctrine in the belief there's no god; system where there's no belief in gods, lack of belief in gods, denial of gods' existence, belief there's no god, etc.
I don't dismiss them (even though atheism is not a doctrine or a belief; atheism is the opposite of belief), but the definition that represents me, that I identify myself with is lack of belief in gods.
Pvblivs, you have to stop with your assumptions about what me or other people here think/don't think; what we believe/don't believe; what definitions of the words and terms we must - according to you - identify ourselves with/use/agree with.
Maybe the reason why you dismiss one of the definitions mentioned in the dictionaries (lack of belief in gods) is because you don't agree with. Ok. But that's your opinion, not mine.
I don't care if - for you, for theists or for other atheists - atheism is belief there are no gods. It's not the definition of atheism that I identify myself with and I won't suddenly change and start agreeing with you and use the definition of atheism you believe to be the only correct one just because you don't agree with me or with the definition of atheism I identify myself with the most.
My goodness, it's like the abortion thing all over again!!
>> But someone who is undecided on whether there exist one or more gods is not an atheist.
I am not undecided about gods' existence. I just lack belief they exist.
>> Babies are not atheists. Dogs and cats are not atheists. Plants are not atheists. And rocks are not atheists.
Pvblivs this example of yours is not only irrelevant to the discussion but also very stupid.
Pvblivs,
ReplyDelete>> But playing along with "oh, no, we just lack a belief is as dishonest as anything Dan does."
No, it isn’t. You can’t claim saying I lack belief in gods is dishonest just because you have the opinion this definition is the wrong one. It’s one of the definitions mentioned in dictionaries and those dictionaries are not going to take this definition out of their pages or some atheists will stop using this definition just because you believe to be the wrong one.
It would be dishonesty is this definition didn’t exist at all and it was something I pulled out of my ass just to suit myself and my arguments (like DAN does when making up definitions for atheism and agnosticism like you can see in his comments in this post.)
I’m not being dishonest because I’m not pushing the definition of atheism I identify myself with on other people and forcing them to accept the definition I use to define myself as atheist just because is the one I agree with.
For example: I agree with the definition of agnosticism mentioned in the video (“I don’t believe in god”). It’s intellectually dishonest since it’s wrong as you well know. But – for argument’s sake – is the definition of agnosticism I agree with and I try to push that on you, even though you pointed out to me the true definition of agnosticism and I keep inventing things and giving irrelevant explanations on why you must accept my definition for agnosticism. That’s dishonest.
That's what you're doing with me and with everyone who happens to disagree with you.
Now, mention one single time that I tried to force my opinion about the definition of atheism I agree with on you. The only thing I did was to give the definitions of atheism mentioned in the dictionaries to show you that lack of belief in gods is one among many definitions for atheism and that is the one I identify myself with. Where’s the dishonesty in that?
Maybe you think I’m being dishonest because I don’t identify myself with the definition of atheism you think to be the only correct one. Is that the reason?
You can agree or disagree with my opinions, arguments and the definition of atheism that represents me the most; I don’t give a rat’s ass about it because your disagreement is irrelevant to me (not because of your disagreement itself, but because I won’t change my opinion just because you disagree with it)
"I don't remember who wrote it, but I'll use the example someone who posted on your blog where he or she said: the myth of Romulus and Remus was written as historical narrative by a roman historian. Following your reasoning, the story of Romulus and Remus is not a myth; it really happened, the twins were fed by a she-wolf after being left to die. "
ReplyDeleteI think Rufus first mentioned the Romulus story, but I went and found out the information about it. It was recorded by a famous Roman historian. It was even part of a book, called "The History of Rome" and that wasn't enough so I actually Google searched for a full translation of "The History of Rome" by Livy and it looked to me that it was, "written as a historical narrative."
Of course I would be interested if Dan would share, what the criteria are for, "written as a historical narrative" so we could just look through and see which ones meet the criteria.
Freddie
ReplyDeleteWhen I say that I don't believe in Santa Claus or fairies, do you think I simply lack an active belief. Well, I "lack a belief" that your statement that you don't specifically believe there are no gods. EVERYONE who self-identifies as an atheist holds such an active belief. Really, it would be meaningless for someone who was undecided to self-identify as such. And you do not come across as undecided.
Mhich:
I hold the belief that "those who lack a belief in gods" is a useless category and that no one would create a term for it except to block the use of an existing term for a more useful definition that they didn't want used. In this case the more useful definition is "people who believe in a lack of gods." Even when pursuing the etymology, atheos means "no gods" as an atomic concept in its own right. It does not mean "no belief." So, atheism is naturally a belief that there are no gods. But neither you nor Freddie would be here if you merely lacked belief. You have a belief that draws you here. You must, or you would not come here. But you deny having any such belief and claim that you merely "lack beliefs."
Pvblivs,
ReplyDelete>> I hold the belief that "those who lack a belief in gods" is a useless category and that no one would create a term for it except to block the use of an existing term for a more useful definition that they didn't want used.
The definition for atheism lack of belief in gods is just one among many. There are definitions that are completely wrong - such as a system that denies the existence of god for example that most atheists don't agree with.
There are other definitions such as disbelief in gods, lack of belief in gods, not believing in gods, belief there's no gods,etc. The ones I consider to be more accurate are the first 3 ones and the one I identify myself with is lack of belief in gods. The one you believe to be the only correct definition is the least accurate one since atheism is not a belief. Atheism is disbelief/lack of belief/not believing in gods' existence; atheism is the opposite of belief...that's a fact.
Again, your argument that "those who lack a belief in gods is a useless category and that no one would create a term for it except to block the use of an existing term for a more useful definition that they didn't want used." is based on your opinion which is not a fact since this opinion of yours is based only on your misleading personal worldview about atheism and not based on facts.
The fact is: "lack of belief is a definition of atheism mentioned in many dictionaries; it's a valid definition; many atheists identify themselves with that definition. You assuming that atheists who say "lacking belief in gods" is an useless category because you consider this definition to be the wrong one is dishonest. You may bury your head in the sand, cover your ears and go out screaming "la la la I can't/don't want hear you because you identify yourself with a definition of atheism I disagree with and I will only hear you if agree with me/accept my opinion as correct/true/accurate and start accepting the definition of atheism I believe to be the right one" is not going to make this definition less valid. Suck it up and move on already!!!
>> But neither you nor Freddie would be here if you merely lacked belief. You have a belief that draws you here. You must, or you would not come here. But you deny having any such belief and claim that you merely "lack beliefs."
Here you are again assuming to much. I can't speak for Freddie but the reason why I'm here has nothing to do with what you think . I'm an atheist for quite some time and I'm secure about atheism because I see no reason to change it. Of course there's the possibility I'm wrong and gods do exist, but no concrete evidence of their existence was presented to me, therefore I don't see a reason to stop being an atheist and become a theist due the claims that are based only on faith.
I'm not here because " I'm undecided if I lack belief in gods or not". I'm here to participate on debates, see different/opposing opinions from mine, see different arguments (it doesn't mean I have to agree with them) and learn something new (which I have, but it wasn't from DAN or you, that's for sure; since both of you acted with dishonesty in some occasions like coming up with flawed arguments and ignoring facts to better suit yourselves and - in your case Pvblivs - assuming to much about what we think or must think even though we proved you to be wrong; demanding us to accept your opinions about things - like it's your way or no way - because you act like you're always right and everyone who disagrees with you are always wrong and demanding us to consider everything you say to be relevant to the discussion; demanding us to adress the issues and having a tantrum when we consider your argument to be irrelevant and not worthy being adressed to)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePvblivs,
ReplyDeleteJust another thing: if you want to debate with me about something, it's ok. But it's the last time I talk to you about this subject. You are free to answer me back; but unless you come up with something new - which I really doubt - I won't answer you anymore since I've already made my point, you've made yours and I don't see the need to keep on with this particular debate.
I have my opinions, you have yours; we don't agree with each other...let's leave it that because this talk got old and there's nothing else to be said, ok? Let's move on...
It is amazing to me that the absence of belief in something can be so compelling for an individual.
ReplyDeletePvblivs said... (to me)
ReplyDeleteFreddie
When I say that I don't believe in Santa Claus or fairies, do you think I simply lack an active belief.
Based on that statement, yes. You do not specifically state that you believe Santa does not exist (or that fairies do not exist). Why should I assume such when it's so much easier to ask you to clarify your position? We could then discuss Santa or fairies without me strawmanning your position.
Well, I "lack a belief" that your statement that you don't specifically believe there are no gods.
That's your prerogative.
EVERYONE who self-identifies as an atheist holds such an active belief.
This is demonstrably false as I self-identify as an atheist and I do not hold an active belief that god(s) do not exist. You claiming that I must believe otherwise does not make it so.
Really, it would be meaningless for someone who was undecided to self-identify as such.
What has meaning got to do with it? I self-identify as an atheist as the definition covers the general position I hold, that's all the reason I need. I could, if I wished, choose to self-identify with a different label or, like you, with no label. It is not the label that defines my position, it's my position which defines which label I choose to self-identify with.
And you do not come across as undecided.
Again this seems irrelevant to me. I may come across as less than undecided when we move on to specific arguments - such as Dan's presuppositional God - because I am more certain that such a god is logically incoherent. However, I'm yet to see truly compelling arguments that would cause me to actively believe that no gods exist and I see no reason why I should claim a belief that I do not hold.
cont'd...
cont'd...
ReplyDeletePvblivs said... (to Mhich)
I hold the belief that "those who lack a belief in gods" is a useless category and that no one would create a term for it except to block the use of an existing term for a more useful definition that they didn't want used.
You've yet to demonstrate that that is how/why the "lack of belief" definition came about. Regardless, I'm not using it to block anything. If an argument cannot be made against my stated position, why then, should I agree to accept a position that I don't hold simply so someone else can make an argument against it? It gets us nowhere as there's still no argument against the position I do hold.
In this case the more useful definition is "people who believe in a lack of gods."
How is this more useful? And more useful for what? If it doesn't describe my (or Mhich's) position then any discussion is little more than an intellectual exercise. Instead of demanding one party concede to something that doesn't describe them why shouldn't we base our discussions on positions people actually hold? Especially as Dan has stated that the purpose of the blog isn't to debunk atheism but atheists. I'm an atheist - debunk my position, not some position you think I should hold based on your opinion as to the 'correct' definition of atheism.
Even when pursuing the etymology, atheos means "no gods" as an atomic concept in its own right. It does not mean "no belief." So, atheism is naturally a belief that there are no gods.
If we're going to get technical the ancient Greek word which directly translated as "not God" was used as an adjective variously as:
1. without gods
2. denying or disdaining the gods (especially officially sanctioned gods)
3. generally: godless, secular
4. abandoned by the gods
It's latin derivative, atheos, is a noun which is translated as:
1. an atheist, one that does not believe in God
Which brings us to the French derived atheist again a noun which has several definitions including:
1. One who does not have a belief in the existence of God, god, Gods or gods.
2. Especially, one who does not have any religious belief; an irreligious person.
3. One who believes that no deities exist.
So we can see that both the active belief and the lack of belief are valid definitions of the word.
But neither you nor Freddie would be here if you merely lacked belief. You have a belief that draws you here. You must, or you would not come here. But you deny having any such belief and claim that you merely "lack beliefs."
A strange assertion to make. I am here in an attempt to increase my knowledge - of religion, of religious/non-religious thought - which may help me reach a more concrete belief regarding the (non-)existence of god(s) ... or maybe it won't. I'm also here for the debate, to procrastinate instead of work, out of habit etc... My lack of belief doesn't necessarily define why I'm here.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete[Edited twice:]
ReplyDeletePvblivs writes:
“It is much the same way that I "don't believe in the Loch Ness monster" because I believe it does not exist.”
I too am a hard a-Nessie-ist. I believe Nessie does not exist. But plenty of people remain agnostic on the matter, and those fencesitters also “don’t believe in the Loch Ness monster”. Either you have a belief, or you don’t.
“But someone who is undecided on whether there exist one or more gods is not an atheist.”
I disagree. Theism/atheism is binary. You either believe, or you don’t. No third option.
“Babies are not atheists. Dogs and cats are not atheists. Plants are not atheists. And rocks are not atheists.”
Plants and rocks have no minds. Though dogs and cats have beliefs, I doubt they’re capable of theism. So there’s no point in labelling them “atheists”.
Calling babies “implicit atheists” makes a rather trivial point that no one was born with a belief in a deity (contrary to claims like DAN’s “God has revealed Himself to EVERYONE”).
“When you [Mhich] finished your statement with "due the lack of evidence," you showed that you had, in fact, drawn a conclusion. No matter how many times you say you "lack belief," you don't lack a belief; you have a belief.”
Do you have a belief that Mhich is a black man?
To my knowledge, I've neither met nor seen a photo of Mhich. Nor have I heard Mhich make any claims about their color or gender. Since I have no evidence to draw a conclusion that Mhich is a black man, I do not have that belief.
How about you? Do you have that belief? If not, do you have a positive belief that Mhich is not a black man?
I don't understand what WLC is trying to do here. When I use the term atheist, I use it to mean generally lacking a belief in any gods due to a perceived lack of convincing evidence. Sure, under WLC's definition I'd probably be an agnostic more than an atheist... Though it depends on the god you're talking about. I quite firmly believe that Zeus doesn't exist. I suppose less firm in my belief that YHWH doesn't exist(Probably just due to cultural bias) and I wouldn't say I affirm the position "no god of any sort could possibly exist" at all. It's a gradient of certainty and uncertainty, it can't really be crammed into three categories. Dawkins did a pretty good job in the God Delusion with his seven degrees of belief. I believe that's a much more accurate presentation of people's beliefs.
ReplyDeleteBut yeah, as to why I don't get what WLC is trying to do here. So by his definition, I'm not an atheist. So what? It's just a word. If we can get to a mutual understanding where everyone adopts WLC's definiton of agnosticism, I'll be a bloody agnostic then. But notice that nothing about my beliefs has changed. I'm not any more a of a theist than back when I used the label "atheist". I'm not any more convinced of Christianity than I was. I haven't seen the error of my ways and backed down from a position of "no god exists" because in truth, I never held that position. It's the same thing with another name.
If WLC or you or anyone challenges me to prove that atheism is true, I'll merely shrug and say that I can't do that. Proving god doesn't exist is impossible. It might be possible to disprove the christian God, but only if both parties agree on what they consider proof. If, for example, WLC accepts the notion that if there are any mistakes or contradictions in the Bible, the christian God doesn't exist, then it's possible to prove God doesn't exist. Many liberal christians however fully accept that there are mistakes in the Bible, but they don't think that says anything about God's existence. We might also agree that if man shares a common ancestor with other primates, God doesn't exist. But not all christians agree with that, either. In fact, most don't. You might think the extent of evil proves there can be no good God, but WLC contends this God might have morally sufficient reasons to allow all this evil. So we must agree on what constitutes as proof. Of course it's even more difficult to disprove a general "god" type ultimate superbeing behind the universe with no known specific attributes.
If you think me or Hitchens admitting one can't disprove God or prove atheism is enough for you to "win" the debate, fine. "Winning" a debate is almost as meaningless as the the random collections of vowels and symbols we use to categorize beliefs.
Mhich:
ReplyDelete"Just another thing: if you want to debate with me about something, it's ok. But it's the last time I talk to you about this subject. You are free to answer me back; but unless you come up with something new - which I really doubt - I won't answer you anymore since I've already made my point, you've made yours and I don't see the need to keep on with this particular debate"
I accept your decision not to address the topic with me. I don't see where you have made a point, although I see where you have made some claims. But I shall take it as though you had made that decision a couple comments back and not bother reading those posts where a reply would be talking to air.
Freddie:
"Based on that statement, yes. You do not specifically state that you believe Santa does not exist (or that fairies do not exist)."
If you are going to lie to try to make your case, might I recommend that you stick to plausible lies? In the English language "I don't believe <X>" is succ a common substitute for expressing a belief that <X> is false that in the rare instances where womeone has not made up his mind when making the statement, he must resort to longer phrases to make that point clear. For you not to be familiar with the expression or (given the common usage) not to assume its use would be beyond o btuse and I do not believe that of you. That leaves that you are exhibiting a pretense.
Robin:
No, I don't believe that Mhich is a black man as she has identified herself as female. Were it not for that point I would have to say (more clumsily) that I don't know whether she was a black man or not. You see, if you weren't trying to make the claim that atheism is only a "lack of belief" you would take my statement that I do not believe her to be a black man to be ruling out the possibility, as in fact it is. That is the customary way the phrase "I don't believe" is used.
"I too am [an] a-Nessie-ist. I believe Nessie does not exist. But plenty of people remain agnostic on the matter,"
I fixed it for you, no need to thank me. Yes, many people do remain undecided. And it would be both dishonest and futile to lump them in the category of "a-Nessie-ist." It would give the impression that we felt some need to inflate our claimed numbers.
"I disagree. Theism/atheism is binary. You either believe, or you don’t. No third option."
So you don't think that there are people who are undecided on whether there are gods? Let me tell you. I exist. I am undecided on whether there are (hidden) gods. I am not an atheist. I am offended at attempts to categorize me as one. It's not that I think that it is some sort of insult. But I don't like being placed into a group where I don't belong. I would be equally offended if you tried to reclassify me as an astronaut.
Pvb,
ReplyDelete>>I am offended at attempts to categorize me as one. It's not that I think that it is some sort of insult. But I don't like being placed into a group where I don't belong. I would be equally offended if you tried to reclassify me as an astronaut.
Just so we are all clear, you are labeled from our perspective, as an antichrist. 1 John 2:18, 1 John 2:22, 1 John 4:3
All other labels are irrelevant. Jesus made that abundantly clear. Matthew 7:21-23
Pvblivs said...
ReplyDeleteFreddie:
"Based on that statement, yes. You do not specifically state that you believe Santa does not exist (or that fairies do not exist)."
If you are going to lie to try to make your case, might I recommend that you stick to plausible lies?
I did not lie. Let's see what evidence you have to support your assertion...
In the English language "I don't believe " is succ a common substitute for expressing a belief that is false that in the rare instances where womeone has not made up his mind when making the statement, he must resort to longer phrases to make that point clear.
That'll be 'none' then. I don't give a flying fuck about whether it's the Commonest Thing In The World"™ according to you, you can take your fallacious appeal to common practice and shove it. That's not the way I work.
For you not to be familiar with the expression or (given the common usage) not to assume its use would be beyond o btuse and I do not believe that of you. That leaves that you are exhibiting a pretense.
I have no reason to assume a positive belief when such isn't indicated - despite your claim to the contrary - and to assume such a belief, when none exists, does nothing to aid discussion. Do you have some aversion to asking questions in order to ascertain someone's true beliefs? Or do you prefer jumping to unfounded conclusions, based on nothing more than your own opinion, only to then accuse people of lying when they point out that your assumptions about them were so very wrong?
Interesting article: (I hade to repost due type errors)
ReplyDeleteThe Persistent And Incorrect Belief That Atheism Is A Religion
Robin: “But plenty of people remain agnostic on the matter, and those fencesitters also “don’t believe in the Loch Ness monster”. Either you have a belief, or you don’t. ... Theism/atheism is binary. You either believe, or you don’t.”
ReplyDeletePvblius: “So you don't think that there are people who are undecided on whether there are gods?”
Of course there are, just like there are people undecided about Nessie. And to me, those people are also “atheists”, meaning “nonbelievers in gods”.
Pvblius: “I am not an atheist. I am offended at attempts to categorize me as one. It's not that I think that it is some sort of insult. But I don't like being placed into a group where I don't belong.”
Does it offend you when many of your fellow nonbelieving agnostics categorize themselves as “atheists”?
You don’t seem to mind us categorizing you with unbelievers, you just mind other soft atheists like yourself labeling that category “atheists”.
Freddie:
ReplyDeleteYou know as well as I do that the expression "I don't believe..." conveys the positive belief of the falsehood of the thing "not believed." But then, you also know that to admit this openly would discredit your otherwise more plausible lie that atheism is a mere lack of belief.
Robin:
When Dan calls me an "unbeliever" he is not saying that I do not believe there are any gods, he is saying that I do not believe in his god. And that's true. I believe that his god is a fake.
"Does it offend you when many of your fellow nonbelieving agnostics categorize themselves as 'atheists'?"
It doesn't happen. There are now some atheists who pretend that they are agnostics who think the "atheist" label applies. But then, Lee Strobel pretended that he was an atheist who was convinced that the biblical god must be real by "it's in the bible so it must be true." I am not persuaded. Anyone who identifies himself as an atheist has a positive belief that there is no god. It is meaningful to make predictions of what might follow from specificly believing there is no god. Thus, it is useful to have a term for it. That term is "atheist." You cannot meaningfully make prediction from "lacks belief" because it is too broad. Thus such a category is useless except to prevent a term from being used for the desired category.
Dan:
I don't like your phoney labels either. But I expect christians to lie for their cause. I don't, or at least I didn't expect atheists to do the same. After all, atheists (for the most part) come to the belief that there is no god because they expect that, if there were a god, there would be direct evidence of it. Someone taking a position from the evidence doesn't need to lie.
--------------------
The only meaningful difference between "hard" and "soft" atheism is that "hard atheists" try to convince others that atheism is "correct" while "soft atheists" do not care if others believe in gods.
Pvb,
ReplyDeleteSomething you do not "lack" is the attempt of articulation of your thoughts. That, I applaud. Something is amiss though.
Now, to call that label "phoney" is a positive stance in itself. Its denial of what Jesus, our Lord, claims. Eve did the same.
You're indeed taking a position and not remaining neutral on the matter of the Christian God. I am sure you are willing to admit that. At least I hope you would, to save intellectual honesty.
As long as we are clear that assuming the God of the Bible is not true, because you believe the Bible is not true, is a denial that cannot be natural itself. As Sye said, "denial of the truth of the Bible leads to absurdity." I agree, and see that plainly. If the Bible were false, you would lose the preconditions for the intelligibility you require to posit your position about God.
Either your common sense is broken, which I see no evidence of, or your denial is beyond 'natural'. I see the latter. I cannot explain it any other way. I see the "suppress the truth by their wickedness" as the Bible claims.
Also, it needs to be repeated that assuming that the Bible is not evidence for God because you do not believe God exists, is question begging.
If the Bible speaks truth, then God says you deny Him because of the claim that He indeed has revealed Himself to you already. You are literally calling God a liar. You are in no way "neutral" which you are not claiming I hope, but it still needs to be pointed out.
It's nothing new for people to deny the existence of God or to create false gods to worship so that they can be their own god. It's one of the oldest sins in the book. You're not alone.
Shit, so Dan and Circular Sye are still at it: Making assertions without a shred of proof. "denial of the bible leads to absurdity"?
ReplyDeleteBullshit. Look at some of the shit the bible says: If believers drink poison that they'll be unharmed. That's absurdity right there. If denying [b]that[/b] is absurd then I've a test for both of you.
And again: How has this "god" revealed himself or herself or themselves to us? We've already gone over how the bible itself isn't that accurate and how one needs ones senses in the first place to read the bible (since Dan and Sye keep saying that godbelief is the reason that they can trust their senses in the first place)!
This presuppositional crap must be what happens when theists realize that they've no actual evidence that can stand up to scrutiny so they just assume the very things they try to prove and pretend that they've won the debate.
In another post someone posted this which I find to be useful.
Whoops. Replace "godbelief" with "special revelation" in the above post.
ReplyDeletePvblivs said...
ReplyDeleteFreddie:
You know as well as I do that the expression "I don't believe..." conveys the positive belief of the falsehood of the thing "not believed."
Lol, always? No, of course not. Why are you still advocating that I should jump to unfounded conclusions instead of asking further questions?
But then, you also know that to admit this openly would discredit your otherwise more plausible lie that atheism is a mere lack of belief.
Firstly, there's nothing to admit as your assertion above is an appeal to common practice and therefore fallacious. I'm perfectly within my right to withold judgement on a person's beliefs - both positive and negative - until I have enough answers to make an informed decision about their beliefs.
Secondly, my claim that there is a definition of atheism that covers mere lack of belief isn't a lie. There is a definition of atheism that certainly does allow for my position - as we've seen over the course of these discussions - so I self identify as such and, unless you have something more than fallacious appeals to common practice or baseless assertions of phoney definitions, I'll continue to do so.
Dan:
ReplyDeleteI make no claims of neutrality regarding your religion. Your god is both fictitious and evil. He is evil in the same way that we may judge certain characters in storybooks to be evil. He isn't really there. And that's a good thing. No, your label is phoney because it is used as a device for shunning people and telling christins not to listen to what outsiders might say.
I conclude that the god of the bible is not there because his description is one of a meddler. He is one who cannot resist interfering in blatently obvious ways. And yet, I see no evidence. The meddler is clearly not there.
I am quite aware that you ans Sye make the false claim that your god is a necessary precondition for reasoning. But the reality is that your god is incompatible with reasoning.
"If the bible speaks the truth..." Well, the bible doesn't speak the truth. The bible speaks the claims of the religious leaders of the time. And it includes passages to make the people afraid to dissent.
"Also, it needs to be repeated that assuming that the [b]ible is not evidence for [our fictitious god] because you do not believe [our fictitious god] exists, is question begging."
Really, it doesn't. Even if your god did exist, the bible still would not be evidence of your god.
Freddie:
My argument is an "appeal to common practices" to the same extent that language itself is. If you want to go down the road that all language is unintelligible, then you will have to go it alone. But I will agree that the definition of atheism suits your position -- that gods do not exist. It just doesn't suit those who are undecided on the matter.
Pvblivs said...
ReplyDeleteFreddie:
My argument is an "appeal to common practices" to the same extent that language itself is. If you want to go down the road that all language is unintelligible, then you will have to go it alone.
If I was trying to do that I would, however, I'm simply pointing out that your assertion - that I must mean I believe no God(s) exist when I say I do not believe in God(s) - is wrong and I thank you for conceding your argument for it is fallacious.
But I will agree that the definition of atheism suits your position -- that gods do not exist.
Of course that's not my position, my position is that I do not believe in God(s). I do not currently have a positive belief that "no God(s) exist" despite your continued attempts to force that position on to me.
It just doesn't suit those who are undecided on the matter.
The definition suits me just fine.
Pvb,
ReplyDelete>>Your god is both fictitious and evil.
How would that even be possible? Caught FTW.
The same way that Darth Vader is both fictitious and evil. Duh.
ReplyDeleteD'oh!
ReplyDeleteOK Touché. My new point is how can something be evil, which is a moral standard, or law, within a worldview that does not allow a standard of morality?
Without a moral law, there could be no evil. Its a non sequitur to say there is not God, and there is evil.
Robin: “Does it offend you when many of your fellow nonbelieving agnostics categorize themselves as 'atheists'?”
ReplyDeletePvblivs: “It doesn't happen.”
Not only does it happen, freddies_dead and mhich did so right in this very thread.
D.A.N.: “My new point is how can something be evil, which is a moral standard, or law, within a worldview that does not allow a standard of morality?”
I suppose you should ask someone whose worldview that does not allow them to choose a standard of morality. Good luck finding one.
How can something be good when the one who supposedly sets up a standard of morality doesn't even bother to follow his own rules? Ex) that "capital punishment" of the women and children of ancient Israel's (alleged) enemies?
ReplyDeleteOr: Why give us a "conscience" which is supposed to be some guidepost to this so-called standard, and then command actions that our consciences quail at?
To say that atheism "does not allow a standard of morality" is bullshit. Atheism just doesn't come with a pre-packaged standard. Nothing forbids atheists from coming up with out own.
ReplyDelete>>Nothing forbids atheists from coming up with out own.
ReplyDeleteThen you cannot say others are right or wrong, if merely subjective as you claim.
Sure we can, D.A.N., just like you do with your subjective morality, based on the whims of a god of ancient slavebeating marauders, who just happened to invent for themselves a god who endorsed beating slaves and commanded them to maraud other tribes.
ReplyDeleteEver hear of "consensus" Dan? Ever hear of the consequences for society? Ever hear of empathy?
ReplyDeleteBesides, how is your morality NOT subjective? As an example: It's OK for biblegod to kill babies but it's not ok for doctors to do it?
Again, we just have to figure out a moral code instead of brainlessly assuming that one came pre-packaged somewhere. The advantage is, that with changing circumstances, we can change the moral code to best suit the most people.
ReplyDeleteFor example: Genocide is now frowned upon whereas biblegod himself ordered it in many cases. The bible endorsed or at least did not condemn slavery, whereas slavery is now illegal.
Dan:
ReplyDelete"How would that even be possible?"
Well, if you had read my very next statement, you would see that I described exactly how.
Robin:
"Not only does it happen, freddies_dead and mhich did so right in this very thread."
No, Robin, it doesn't happen. What does, and did, happen is that atheists pretend that they don't have a belief in the absence of gods and then say they still self-identify as atheists. It's a little like christians pretending to be atheists but then being "convinced" by "the bible says so." Those two believe specificly that no gods exist and have previously shown this, even though they deny it for the purpose of this discussion. I seem to remember Freddie telling Ray that he was already atheistic (believed in the absence) with regard to thousands of other gods and asking what was one more.
Freddie:
You went so far as to say my assertion of not believing in Santa was not specific and that my claiming that it was a fallacy of "common usage."
"'It just doesn't suit those who are undecided on the matter.'
"The definition suits me just fine."
As I have already concluded that you are not undecided, that does not really contradict me.
The first window into someone's beliefs is, of course, what he says they are. But sometimes people lie, like the christians who "play atheist." When someone's actions do not fit with his stated beliefs, we revise our assessment of what his beliefs are to fit those actions. Attempting to enforce the definition of atheism as the useless group of "lacking belief," which applies to babies, dogs, cats, plants, and rocks, does not fit someone who only "lacks belief." It does, however, fit with someone who holds a belief that gods do not exist but does not want the category of people who hold that belief spokan of as a group.
Pvblius: “Those two believe specificly that no gods exist and have previously shown this, even though they deny it for the purpose of this discussion.”
ReplyDeleteNo true agnostics, eh?
freddies_dead and mhich specifically said they do not believe that. How do you reckon they have shown otherwise?
Pvblius: “I seem to remember Freddie telling Ray that he was already atheistic (absence of belief) with regard to thousands of other gods and asking what was one more.”
Fixed that for you.
What evidence do you have that freddies_dead and mhich are misrepresenting what they believe? Using a different definition of “atheist” than you won’t suffice.
Robin:
ReplyDelete"[Broke] that for you."
I fixed your statement for you. Freddie was very much focusing on the fact that Ray believed these other gods do not exist. He was not referring to a mere absence of belief.
"What evidence do you have that freddies_dead and mhich are misrepresenting what they believe?"
Regardless of your claim that it will not suffice, the fact that they are pushing a definition of "atheist" that is so overbroad that it is useless as a category is not compatible with a mere lack of belief. The alternate "definition" exists only to block access to the standard definition. Obviously, when somone makes a generalized statement about atheist (whether or not you think the statement is correct; I often disagree with the statement) he is not trying to include babies, dogs, cats, rats, plants, rocks, sand, etc. Pushing such an overbroad definition needs an ulterior motive. Also, their arguments with Dan convinced me before they were claiming only to "lack belief." But I'm feeling lazy and don't want to hunt down details. It's easier to remember the general concept than to remember the specific points in these threads.
Pvblivs said...
ReplyDeleteFreddie:
You went so far as to say my assertion of not believing in Santa was not specific and that my claiming that it was a fallacy of "common usage."
I did say your staement about Santa wasn't specific ... because it wasn't. My charge of you appealing to common practice, however, is based on your claiming that, when I say "I do not believe in the existence of [X]", I actually mean "I believe that [X] does not exist" because that's a common usage of the phrase. It is an appeal to common practice. Apart from being fallacious it's also false, in that I'm not using the phrase in that manner.
"'It just doesn't suit those who are undecided on the matter.'
"The definition suits me just fine."
As I have already concluded that you are not undecided, that does not really contradict me.
It is irrelevant what you have concluded - especially when your conclusions are based on incorrect premises i.e. that I mean one thing when I have said another. I have yet to decide on whether any God(s) exist.
The first window into someone's beliefs is, of course, what he says they are.
If only you'd accept what I say about my beliefs we might get somewhere...
But sometimes people lie, like the christians who "play atheist."
I haven't lied.
When someone's actions do not fit with his stated beliefs, we revise our assessment of what his beliefs are to fit those actions.
My actions have been consistent. I have expressed my position, shown that there is a valid definition of the term 'atheism' which fits my position and finally stated that I self-identify with the term based on that.
Attempting to enforce the definition of atheism as the useless group of "lacking belief," which applies to babies, dogs, cats, plants, and rocks, does not fit someone who only "lacks belief."
The position is a valid one. There is a definition of atheism that covers the position. I self-identify with that. I haven't tried to enforce anything. I certainly haven't applied the label to anyone or anything that is unable to identify with it - in fact I made a point of denying that babies, cats or rocks were atheists.
It does, however, fit with someone who holds a belief that gods do not exist but does not want the category of people who hold that belief spokan of as a group.
I couldn't give a toss about whether people speak about such a group. I acknowledge that such people - those that believe no gods exist - exist. I simply continue to point out that I am not part of such a group because I do not believe the same thing.
Pvblivs said... (to Robin)
ReplyDeleteFreddie was very much focusing on the fact that Ray believed these other gods do not exist. He was not referring to a mere absence of belief.
Of course it was a discussion of what Ray believed, not me. I'm also happy to accept that there is more than one accepted definition of atheism. In Ray's case that's the dogmatic assertion that no God(s) exist - it would seem pointless to engage Ray using some other definition than the one he already uses himself.
Pvblivs: “Regardless of your claim that it will not suffice, the fact that they are pushing a definition of "atheist" that is so overbroad that it is useless as a category is not compatible with a mere lack of belief.”
ReplyDeleteThat's not a fact: Socially, a “nonbelievers in deities” category is not useless but useful, which lack of belief is thoroughly compatible with.
“The alternate "definition" exists only to block access to the standard definition.”
Nobody blocked DAN or you from using a narrow definition.
But when you argue with soft atheists who are not “atheists” by your preferred narrow definition, they rightly tell you that your arguments against (hard) “atheists” don’t apply to them. They have no need to block arguments against hard atheists, since such arguments were never aimed at them.
“Obviously, when somone makes a generalized statement about atheist ... he is not trying to include babies, dogs, cats, rats, plants, rocks, sand, etc. Pushing such an overbroad definition needs an ulterior motive.”
Indeed, nobody but you has tried to apply “atheist” to plants and rocks. So what’s your ulterior motive? To knock down a straw man?
“Also, their arguments with Dan convinced me before they were claiming only to "lack belief." But I'm feeling lazy and don't want to hunt down details.”
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
freddies_dead and mhich are in a position to know what they believe, and you are not. So, since you provide nothing to back up your groundless assertion, I find their word more reliable than yours.
Robin: “Evidence is also lacking for a historical Jesus, who may be a purely legendary figure who never existed at all, like King Arthur. No contemporaneous evidence exists of this alleged Nazarene’s life, just anonymous hearsay decades-removed accounts copied and copied and copied and found centuries later. (Speaking of Nazareth, archeologists have found that the village of Nazareth did not even exist in the first century A.D.)”
ReplyDeleteD.A.N.: “You're is pure denial now. There is Overwhelming Evidence of Jesus' existence.”
No, in actual fact, there is not a scrap of contemporanous evidence of Jesus' existence. We can take that up in your other post.
“You cannot discount the Bible, it is a very integral part of our history as cherished antiquity.”
Can and did. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was also a very integral part of our history, but that doesn’t make it true.
“You have heard of Julius Caesar and I am sure you believe that he existed, right? Well there were 10 manuscripts of antiquity that explained who he was as we know him today. 10 that is it, in one language, everything we know today about him came from just those 10 manuscripts, with the earliest one dating to 1,000 years after the original autograph.”
No, that’s a lie. Julius Caesar’s footprint on history goes much, much deeper than 10 manuscripts. Firstly, there’s many more than 10 manuscripts, by reliable sources. Cicero alone left us over 900 preserved letters between Cicero and Caesar or between Cicero and others regarding Caesar.
Not only do we have eyewitness accounts of his life, we have Julius Caesar's own books, classics studied by Latin students to this day. We have his funeral orations. We have his poetry.
Every ancient historian of the time writes about Julius Caesar, including Suetonius’s “Lives of the Twelve Caesars”, Appian’s “Civil Wars”, Cassius Dio’s “Historia Romana”, and Plutarch’s “Parallel Lives”. Their histories critically examine disputed claims, quote and name sources — both friendly accounts and hostile accounts by Caesar’s enemies, and show a wide reading of witnesses and documents.
And we need not rely on texual evidence, since we have physical evidence of Julius Caesar’s reign. Inscriptions. Coins. We have evidence of battles his armies fought.
Jesus left nothing comparable. The gospels are anonymous, contradictory hearsay accounts with no historical scholarship: they never cite a source nor show any critical examination. Except for “Luke”, none even claim to be writing history. Nor have we any firsthand Book of Jesus. You’d think a godling wanting to record his vital message to posterity would do so himself, unfiltered by unreliable men. Nor have we any physical evidence of any of Jesus’s deeds.
Your suggestion that historical evidence for Julius Caesar is as sketchy as that for Jesus Christ ignores a tremendous amount of far more reliable evidence of his life and deeds.
By the way, like many ancient figures, Julius Caesar was claimed to be born of a virgin, and inscriptions on his coinage label Caesar "son of God". But we should not accept such extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence.
Correction: Octavian, not Julius, is labeled "son of (a) god" on most of his denarii. His coins call Julius a god, not "son of god".
ReplyDeleteRobin:
ReplyDeleteThe only use I have seen for that category is substituting it for the actual desired category after someone has made a statement about atheists and responding "really? even babies?" That usage is not compatible with a mere lack of belief as it is quite clear that the previous speaker in such an instance was referring to a belief in a lack.
Although, you have claimed it is useful, I don't see it. You will have to give an example (not of someone claiming to be an "atheist" without actually being one, but of a use for the overbroad category that includes bablies, dogs, cats, plants, and rocks.)
Oh, and that "really? even babies?" line is blocking access to definition that the preceding person was using.
"Indeed, nobody but you has tried to apply 'atheist' to plants and rocks."
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
Also, I am not going to try (any further) to convince you that those two do not merely "lack belief." You have probably seen their discussions with Dan before and probably already know. But even if you don't, you should recognize that presenting someone that I have already identified as having a belief that there are no gods as an example of someone who "only lacks belief" but supports your definition will not work.
Robin: “Indeed, nobody but you has tried to apply 'atheist' to plants and rocks.”
ReplyDeletePvblivs: “Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.”
I overstated; I meant to write: “Nobody here but you has tried to apply 'atheist' to plants and rocks.”
Pvblivs: “You will have to give an example (not of someone claiming to be an "atheist" without actually being one, but of a use for the overbroad category that includes bablies, dogs, cats, plants, and rocks.)”
No, I don't. Like freddies_dead, I find it useless to categorize rocks as "atheists". If you want a use case for your straw category, provide it yourself.
But I can easily provide examples where a category encompassing people who lack belief in deities would be useful. Frex, support networks for nonbelievers, political activism for equal rights for all nonbelievers, discussion of discrimination both soft and hard atheists face.
Soft and hard atheists have much common cause to band together over.
Pvblivs: “But even if you don't, you should recognize that presenting someone that I have already identified as having a belief that there are no gods as an example of someone who "only lacks belief" but supports your definition will not work.”
Okay, forget freddies_dead and mhich, here’s thousands more.
Robin:
ReplyDelete"No, I don't. Like freddies_dead, I find it useless to categorize rocks as 'atheists.'"
And yet, like Freddie, you insist on a definition, "lacks a specific belief in gods," that applies to rocks. I trust that you will agree that rocks do not have a specific belief in any gods. Your desire to trim that category appear to be on a strictly ad hoc basis. I have not created a straw category. I have identified a necessary result of your stated category that you find absurd. I believe that's called reductio ad absurdum.
Your supposed example is not as useful as you seem to think. Any such discrimination applies also to theists that are outside whatever the local mainstream religion is. And, even if that were not the case, it would stil be more useful to say that both atheists and agnostics were facing discrimination than to impede the existing definition of atheist. It wouldn't be the first time that multiple categories were the target of discrimination. But, normally, one does not change the definition of one of the categories to include everyone being discriminated against. Or perhaps you are now making the distinction between "hard" and "soft" atheism the way I do. Hard atheists try to convince others that atheism is correct. Soft atheists do not.
I do not believe that an agnostic (one who claims no knowledge of whether gods exist or not) would consider it useful to confuse discussions by claiming agnosticism as a subset of atheism.
"Okay, forget freddies_dead and mhich, here’s thousands more."
And how do you propose that I confirm that any of them actually fail to have the belief that there are no gods rather than make the assertion to support the cause of "see, here's an example of an agnostic who thinks agnostics should be regarded as atheists"?
Pvblivs: “And yet, like Freddie, you insist on a definition, "lacks a specific belief in gods," that applies to rocks.”
ReplyDeleteNo, I would never insist a definition of “atheist” that includes non-people. I’d write a definition like “one who has no belief in deities”, not “something which has no belief in deities”.
Robin: “Okay, forget freddies_dead and mhich, here’s thousands more.”
Pvblivs: “And how do you propose that I confirm that any of them actually fail to have the belief that there are no gods rather than make the assertion to support the cause of "see, here's an example of an agnostic who thinks agnostics should be regarded as atheists"?”
I suggest that rather than try, you realize that your position, that not a single one of those legions of people who call themselves “agnostic atheists” is a genuine agnostic, is almost certainly wrong.
Robin:
ReplyDeleteThere are thousands of christians who "play atheist" in order to "demonstrate" that the bible is convincing even to atheists. Why should I be any more surprised that there are thousands of atheists who "play agnostic" in order to say that agnostics support the phoney definition of atheism?
"No, I would never insist a definition of 'atheist' that includes non-people."
On the other hand, if I were to encounter a being who wasn't human but had formed the active belief that no gods exist, I would regard that being as an atheist without worrying whether he should be called a "person."
Pvblivs: “There are thousands of christians who "play atheist" in order to "demonstrate" that the bible is convincing even to atheists.”
ReplyDeleteI’ve heard fake-sounding testimonials from the likes of Kirk Cameron too. But I don’t doubt that some of those Christians probably were unskeptical atheists-by-default persuaded by evangelists.
After all, every Christian in the world was once an implicit atheist.
Pvblivs: “Why should I be any more surprised that there are thousands of atheists who "play agnostic" in order to say that agnostics support the phoney definition of atheism?”
As opposed to being agnostics who do consider themselves atheists? Is that so impossible?
Robin:
ReplyDeleteKirk Cameron was never an atheist. And "implicit atheist" is a meaningless construction. Atheism is an explicit position. Anyone who claims someone to be "atheist by default" may as well be calling rocks atheists. Gee, maybe now you can have some people claim that they self-identify as "atheist" because they "never even heard about the concept of gods."
"As opposed to being agnostics who do consider themselves atheists? Is that so impossible?"
Yes, it is so impossible. And it is precisely because you push "implicit atheist" and "atheist by default." That should be a red flag to anyone that you are pushing a phoney definition to replace a pre-existing one -- as, indeed, you are. It might have been plausible if you had restricted the term to those who had heard of the concept of gods and then determined whether they believed. But it is far too late for that now. Now, if you try even that definition, I have to regard it as phoney, because it is an adjustment to an obviously phoney definition made to sound more reasonable.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePvblivs: “Gee, maybe now you can have some people claim that they self-identify as "atheist" because they "never even heard about the concept of gods."”
ReplyDeleteNow that would be absurd.
I think “agnostic atheist” seems impossible to you because you seem not to understand how “agnostic” is being used:
Pvblivs: “I do not believe that an agnostic (one who claims no knowledge of whether gods exist or not) would consider it useful to confuse discussions by claiming agnosticism as a subset of atheism.”
You misunderstand: People in the freethought community don’t consider agnosticism “as a subset of atheism”, but as an overlapping set. Mhich explained this way back in the first comment. They’re separate dimensions: “gnostic/agnostic” regards what you (think you) know, while “theism/atheism” regards what you believe. In a Venn diagram, “agnostic theists” lie within the “agnostic” circle but outside the “atheist” circle, while “agnostic atheists” lie within an intersection of both.
[Combining previous post and corrections:]
ReplyDeleteTo clarify all this jargon, a little glossary of how freethought groups use these terms:
A strong atheist or hard atheist believes there are no gods. (Some scholarly literature refers to this with Anthony Flew’s term positive atheism, but that term didn’t catch on over the Internet.)
A weak atheist or soft atheist lacks belief in the existence of gods. (Some scholarly literature refers to this with Anthony Flew’s term negative atheism.)
An implicit atheist lacks belief in deities simply because they haven’t considered it. All implicit atheists would be weak atheists.
An explicit atheist consciously rejects a belief in gods. Explicit atheists may be weak or strong atheists, but all strong atheists are explicit atheists.
A strong agnostic or hard agnostic is one who believes the question of existence of deities is unanswerable. That not only are deities unproven, they never will be proven.
A weak agnostic doesn't take a position on whether we can know whether gods exist. You might say they're agnostic about hard agnosticism.
(A)theism is about whether you believe, while (a)gnosticism is about whether you know. They can combine in four ways:
An agnostic theist believes a god or gods exist, but doesn’t think they know they exist. Agnostic theists may be weak or strong agnostics. Fideists like Martin Gardner are agnostic theists. Many agnostic theists are deists.
An agnostic atheist lacks a belief in the existence of gods, but doesn’t think they know none exist. Agnostic atheists may be weak or strong agnostics, and weak or strong atheists. Most atheists are agnostic atheists.
A gnostic theist (not to be confused with a Gnostic theist) believes in a deity or deities and thinks they know they exist.
A gnostic atheist believes no deities exist and thinks they know they do not. This is stronger than strong atheism, since it includes a claim of knowledge, but all gnostic atheists are strong atheists.
Wow, there sure are a great deal of denominations to keep track of in the Atheist religion. Whew, I thought we were bad. *pshaw
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete[fixing a link:]
ReplyDeleteD.A.N.: “Wow, there sure are a great deal of denominations to keep track of in the Atheist religion.”
Atheism is not a religion, but several religions are atheist, or have atheist schools, like Confucianism, Taoism, Jainism, Buddhism, and Paganism among others.
“Whew, I thought we were bad.”
Those six types of atheism may seem like a lot to you, but that’s several orders of magnitude less than the 33,830 denominations of Christianity counted by the 2001 World Christian Encyclopedia. Wikipedia’s got pages for hundreds of them.
Robin,
ReplyDeleteI am glad we can all, at least, agree that there is an atheist religion, with different denominations, like Christianity. Even if on a smaller scale. I concur to that point.
The mere fact there are different denominations though negates the one true way as talked about in Jeremiah 32:38-40. Even we fall short. Its understandable though, because we are all such individual people, not all of us agree on one thing, save Jesus, and yes even Atheists are included in that scenario. I digress.
The Supreme court also agrees with us that Atheists are a part of a religion. The respective groups all are under the umbrella of "No God" so their respective religions are all atheistic. Just like your religion, whatever that might be. OK now that is cleared up, moving on.
Robin: “Atheism is not a religion, but several religions are atheist...”
ReplyDeleteD.A.N.: “The Supreme court also agrees with us that Atheists are a part of a religion.”
You left out: “for First Amendment purposes”.
That Supreme Court decision, Kaufman v. McCaughtry, also says, “But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all.” (That “none at all” meant atheism.)
Not all atheists are part of a religion.
D.A.N.: “Just like your religion, whatever that might be.”
Don’t have a religion, but as I said in another post here, I’m a hard atheist.
Apropos of nothing, today’s datesetter Harold Camping’s date for the end of the world. Happy Doomsday, everyone!
>>Harold Camping’s date for the end of the world.
ReplyDeleteCan we just celebrate it as 'end of Harold Camping’s career' day? I hope he reads the Bible someday.
Where do you think he GOT that idiotic idea in the first place??
ReplyDeleteThe only thing the bible does to discourage Camping's activity is to say that no one can know the day nor the hour. But the nutty belief system itself? The bible supplied all of that.