Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument

[Guy Threepwood]

Why are you using the word "created"? It seems the bias you claim atheists have is far more abundant in your own posts. We have no idea how we came about. The end. We are attempting to discover this over the course of time. Anyone who claims to have absolute certainty is lying on this matter. Science has in no way said they know for certain, we have guesses and ideas that are possibilities. The only group of people who seem to be claiming absolute certainty are believers and they can only be lying to us and themselves seeing as a faith based position can never be a position of certainty.

Yes, I acknowledge my belief, faith as such, do you?

As far as we can tell, the universe did begin in a specific creation event. (A concept which was originally mocked and rejected by atheists as 'religious pseudoscience' and 'big bang')

The literal creation of all space/time matter/energy as we can possibly know it or investigate it. If you disapprove of the word ''creation' being applied here,
maybe it's the implication of the reality rather than the word you don't like?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

By the same logic, it is also 'literally' athe-ism (which is more accurate etymologically as well), thus it 'literally' is an adopted belief.

To interpret it a-theism simply reflects a subjective personal preference, just like favouring any other potential definition, rather than something more substantial.

When a word has multiple definitions, any of them can be used legitimately.

The "lack of belief in gods" side still recognize people who reject gods as atheists. OTOH, what you seem to be saying is that the "lack of belief in gods" side isn't entitled to use their definition, despite the fact that the choice between the one definition and the other is a "subjective personal preference", as you put it.

Your position seems contradictory: on the one hand, you acknowledge that the "lack of belief in gods" definition is out there and being used, but at the same time argue that it isn't legitimate and shouldn't be used.

 

[Thumper]

Been seeing this one a lot. We have a box but don't know what, if anything, is in it. Or we have a jar of something, but don't know if there's an odd or even amount. Supposedly, the theist position is a claim to know exactly what's in the box, or a claim to know there's an odd or even amount of things in the jar. The atheist, on the other hand, simply does not know what is in the box, or does not know if the items are even or odd.

This analogy doesn't really match the actual philosophy. Yes, gnostic theism claims to know exactly what's in the box, but theism in general simply believes *something* is in the box. However the atheist is not convinced anything is in the box, that it's likely empty. For the atheist to simply be unsure what's in the box would first require them the accept something is in it, basically an acceptance that gods exist, but no certainty on which gods or their nature. Likewise, atheists aren't arguing about whether there are an even or odd amount of gods/things in the jar, they're arguing that the jar seems empty.

Why does the minor difference matter? Atheists try to use these examples to show atheism as simply not taking a stance, rather than a belief in emptiness. This is dishonest, a twist on the position to make it seem it is not a belief. The analogy also ignores agnosticism, in order to make it seem that atheism and agnosticism are identical in the examples. Just more dishonesty, what else can be expected!

I have never seen this analogy before, but it is weak at best. I would posit that from the atheistic perspective, we are arguing that if you claim there is something in the jar (or box), then please show us your verifiable evidence. Or as Asimov said --

"Are there things in the Universe that we cannot know in the usual way of observing and measuring, but that we can know in some other way -- intuition, revelation, mad insight?

"If so, how can you know that what you know in these non-knowing ways is really so. Anything you know without knowing, others can know only through your flat statement without any proof other than 'I know!'

"All this leads to such madness that I, for one, am content with the knowable. That is enough to know."

 

[Thumper]

By the same logic, it is also 'literally' athe-ism (which is more accurate etymologically as well), thus it 'literally' is an adopted belief.

To interpret it a-theism simply reflects a subjective personal preference, just like favouring any other potential definition, rather than something more substantial.

I cannot find that etymology. Could you cite your reference please?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Show me the transitional fossils that show every step of a wolf to a pug. You wont find them.

No, perhaps because they never existed? (apart from the infamous Piltdown Pug of course)

You will find similarities between the pug and wolf genetically, just like you would from an ape to a human.

Just like you would from a Model T to a Ford Mustang, that doesn't mean one spontaneously morphed into the other through a series of accidental design improvements

This is misunderstanding of how evolution actually functions on your part, not a problem with evolution itself. I see this so often I have to wonder if any anti evolutionist has ever remotely understood how the process actually works.

It depends on which process exactly you favor, from gradualism to punctuated equilibrium etc, we can invent the intermediates along with excuses for why they were never found. Either way 'the dog ate my homework' does not earn a passing grade.... Call us stubborn, some of us like a little evidence for extraordinary claims.

 

[Augustus]

I cannot find that etymology. Could you cite your reference please?

The word derives from atheos and the word atheism predates the word theism (per OED).

The word theism also used to mean what we now call deism (OED).

The 'without theism' definition is only about 30 years old

The "lack of belief in gods" side still recognize people who reject gods as atheists. OTOH, what you seem to be saying is that the "lack of belief in gods" side isn't entitled to use their definition, despite the fact that the choice between the one definition and the other is a "subjective personal preference", as you put it.

Your position seems contradictory: on the one hand, you acknowledge that the "lack of belief in gods" definition is out there and being used, but at the same time argue that it isn't legitimate and shouldn't be used.

I didn't take a position in that sense, just pointed out why I dislike the a-theism argument.

When a word has multiple definitions, any of them can be used legitimately.

Of course. I fully agree.

Words can even legitimately be used in ways that meet none of their definitions.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I didn't take a position in that sense, just pointed out why I dislike the a-theism argument.

Personally, I see that argument as mostly irrelevant, since etymology doesn't dictate meaning.

Of course. I fully agree.

You agree that people who describe atheism as "lack of belief in gods" are correct by a normal definition of the word "atheist"?

 

[Thumper]

The word derives from atheos and the word atheism predates the word theism (per OED).
The word theism also used to mean what we now call deism (OED).
The 'without theism' definition is only about 30 years old
I didn't take a position in that sense, just pointed out why I dislike the a-theism argument.
Of course. I fully agree.
Words can even legitimately be used in ways that meet none of their definitions.

Again, can you cite a reference.

When I look at Oxford, I get "Late 16th century: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos, from a- ‘without’ + theos ‘god’."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The 'without theism' definition is only about 30 years old

The "rejection of God" definition became obsolete once English-speaking countries' paradigms shifted to include more gods than just classical monotheistic ones.

 

[Revoltingest]

Personally, I see that argument as mostly irrelevant, since etymology doesn't dictate meaning.


You agree that people who describe atheism as "lack of belief in gods" are correct by a normal definition of the word "atheist"?

Moreover, if were to use definitions based upon etymology instead of current definitions, how far back do we go?
And how confusing this would be.
Let's look at what words have meant....
"Nice" = foolish, simple
"Silly" = worthy, blessed
"Awful" = inspiring awe
"Wench" = child
"Clue" = ball of yarn
"Naughty" = having nothing
"Guy" = Guy Fawkes (no one else)
"Egregious" = good
"Addict" = slave to a debtor
"Afford" = move forward
"Angel" = messenger
"Artificial" = skilled, as an artist or technician
"Bimbo" = just one of the guys
"Bully" = wonderful
"Evil" = uppity
"Flirt" = flick
"Heartburn" = anger or jealousy
"Hospital" = entertaining venue
"Hussy" = housewife
"Manage" = having become a man
"Myrad" = 10,000

Few words still retain their original meaning.
I can only think of 2....
- Cromulent
- Embiggen

 

[Magic Man]

All those religions have different concepts of god. Some even have multiple different concepts within a single religion.

You're also ignoring the huge amount of polytheism in the world, both in terms of number of religions and number of adherents.

IMO, assuming that classical monotheism is some sort of "standard" religious belief is usually an effect of cultural chauvinism. I personally see no reason to adopt this notion of "monotheism primacy" that seems so predominant in Christian-dominated parts of the world.

All those religions have a very similar concept of a god. It's an anthropomorphized powerful being who intervenes in human affairs. There are differences, but the basic concept is similar.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I'm specifying monotheism. I didn't imply that at all. The concepts of gods are very similar, but some have multiple and some have only one.

You're right: it doesn't sound right to

It isn't precise; the exact opposite, in fact.

And strong atheists - at least the way the term has been defined in this thread - would need to reject more than just God-with-a-capital-G; they'd need to reject every god. Even if you lower the bar so they only have to reject every "theistic god" (as you've described the category), this is still an impossible task for any individual human being. It still requires strong atheists to reject concepts they've never even heard of, let alone considered.

No, strong atheists wouldn't need to reject all god-concepts. That's practically impossible, since some god-concepts are literally "love". The problem is "god" has become such a broad term that it's almost useless unless you keep it narrowed to the typical concept.

It's not impossible to reject all theistic gods. They are all similar in the important ways, and those ways are the reason people reject them.

You said earlier that it was also about polytheistic gods.

It is. Yahweh is the usual "human-like being who has some control over human affairs and uses it", just like polytheistic gods.

You also still haven't explained what you mean by "theistic gods" clearly enough that I can know what you mean by "other such gods."

I have actually. A theistic god is what most people who speak English think of when they hear or see the word "god". It's a human-like being who usually has been around since the beginning of the world/universe and probably had a part in creating it and who has some control over humans' lives. It's Zeus, Thor, Vishnu, Shango, Amaterasu, the Goddess, Yahweh, Allah, Dagda, etc.

You don't need to make a case against the deistic god to argue against deism. The mere fact that the deistic god is unfalsifiable - and its existence or non-existence is impossible to demonstrate - is enough to establish that deism is unjustified and the deistic god ought not to be believed in.

That's an interesting way of looking at it, but I don't see how the conclusion follows. I mean, I don't believe in deism for the reasons stated, but I wouldn't say "it ought not to be believed in". I have no real objection to someone saying "I don't know what happened, but I think some kind of intelligence started the universe".

 

[Valerian]

Yes, Polar Bears evolved from Brown Bears likely during the Ice Age. If you have any problem with evolution you have a problem with Pugs. Believe it or not Pugs didn't always exist. They are dogs which came from wolves that we changed by breeding over time.

Seriously, you are not addressing my point. According to those evolutionists, who claim there is no evidence for intelligent design, they believe a polar bear evolved by chance from once its ancestors were nothing more than a single celled organism. How many times must I repeat myself?

The most interesting part of your post is how you are completely blown away by the concept of DNA forming on its own, but so easily gloss over the idea that a being infinitely more impossible could of just formed on its own or always been there. You cant hold such a position, and pretend to be confused by our Universe, without seeming completely ridiculous. If God can just happen, then from there it should be MUCH easier to think anything in our Universe could just happen. I still have no idea how creationists mentally block this out.

Ok, then if I understand you correctly you are saying that the only way life could have begun and evolved is the same way God did. And if God had to have come about "by chance" then so could have life here on earth done so as well. Well that’s a bit of twist because now you are de facto saying God has to exist or evolution without God is untenable. On that score, I can agree with you.

A few others responded to some of my comments on this thread earlier and I, personally, feel some responsibility to respond in kind. However, my work at the office prevents me from having my fun so I am sorry but these evolution debates do require a bit of time and explanation to make one’s point. All I can say then is without God there is no chance in the world, no chance in any honest scientist’s mind that life could evolve on its own (by chance) creating the most fantastic machines and physiological miracles. This is where I and atheism are at a major impasse.

 

[Thumper]

....
You don't need to make a case against the deistic god to argue against deism. The mere fact that the deistic god is unfalsifiable - and its existence or non-existence is impossible to demonstrate - is enough to establish that deism is unjustified and the deistic god ought not to be believed in.

If you are looking for observable and measurable evidence, you are correct that such a god is unfalsifiable.

But you should also consider all the cosmological arguments against such a being (and the apologetic off-shoots such as the kalam cosmological argument).

 

[Thumper]

Seriously, you are not addressing my point. According to those evolutionists, who claim there is no evidence for intelligent design, they believe a polar bear evolved by chance from once its ancestors were nothing more than a single celled organism. How many times must I repeat myself?


Ok, then if I understand you correctly you are saying that the only way life could have begun and evolved is the same way God did. And if God had to have come about "by chance" then so could have life hear on earth done so as well. Well that’s a bit of twist because now you are de facto saying God has to exist or evolution without God is untenable. On that score, I can agree with you.

A few others responded to some of my comments on this thread earlier and I, personally, feel some responsibility to respond in kind. However, my work at the office prevents me from having my fun so I am sorry but these evolution debates do require a bit of time and explanation to make one’s point. All I can say then is without God there is no chance in the world, no chance in any honest scientist’s mind that life could evolve on its own (by chance) creating the most fantastic machines and physiological miracles. This is where I and atheism are at a major impasse.

You seem to be under the mistaken idea that atheism and the biological theory of evolution are somehow intertwined. They are not. Atheists have existed since long before anybody considered the mechanisms of biology.

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." Lucius Annaeus Seneca ( c. 4 BCE – CE 65)

 

[viole]

Lol so you know without absolute certainty? Not only is this nonsense, but I still don't have the faith for. See gnostic portions are still beliefs, just believers who pretending they know something rather than believe it.

Sure. Does the phrase "scientific knowlegde" make sense to you?
If yes, is it equivalent to "scientific certainty"?

It is obvious that science is not in the business of 100% certainties, by definition, even though it pursues knowkedge of the natural world. I know that the speed of light in vacuum is constant, but I cannot be absolutely certain about that.

Absolute certainties are left to other types of epistemologies. You know, those ones involving ancient, inerrant and unchanging books with talking sepents in them

Ciao

- viole

 

[Koldo]

Definitions don't work like that.

A lion can be defined as a large feline found in Africa and Asia. This doesn't mean that all large felines found in Africa and Asia are lions.

It was said and I quote: "A strong atheist believes that the beings covered by a. b. or 2. don't exist".
My point stands.

 

[1137]

Sure. Does the phrase "scientific knowlegde" make sense to you?
If yes, is it equivalent to "scientific certainty"?

It is obvious that science is not in the business of 100% certainties, by definition, even though it pursues knowkedge of the natural world. I know that the speed of light in vacuum is constant, but I cannot be absolutely certain about that.

Absolute certainties are left to other types of epistemologies. You know, those ones involving ancient, inerrant and unchanging books with talking sepents in them

Ciao

- viole

Yep. Which is why atheism is a belief, but not a certainty claim. As I've repeated many times.

 

[1137]

@Thumper provided me a perfect example: "If one considers a scale where 1 is 100% certainty in the existence of God and 7 is 100% certainty in the non existence of God. Then Richard Dawkins considers himself - "The probability of any supernatural creator existing is very, very low, so let's say I'm a 6.9." ... "I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.""

As I've said, this isn't a claim to certainty, that's NEVER been what I'm discussing and I've clearly illustrated that for all who can read. Rather, it's a belief that the universe is probably without gods. Were Dawkins agnostic, he would be a 3.5, but he believes 0 gods to be far more likely than 1+. But if he admitted this openly he'd have a "burden of proof," oh no

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you are looking for observable and measurable evidence, you are correct that such a god is unfalsifiable.

I'm looking for any valid basis that can be used to draw a conclusion.

But you should also consider all the cosmological arguments against such a being (and the apologetic off-shoots such as the kalam cosmological argument).

I haven't seen any version of the cosmological argument that hasn't been utter crap, in terms of the logic of its arguments. They've all been useless to establish any conclusion as true or false, IMO.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

@Thumper provided me a perfect example: "If one considers a scale where 1 is 100% certainty in the existence of God and 7 is 100% certainty in the non existence of God. Then Richard Dawkins considers himself - "The probability of any supernatural creator existing is very, very low, so let's say I'm a 6.9." ... "I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.""

As I've said, this isn't a claim to certainty, that's NEVER been what I'm discussing and I've clearly illustrated that for all who can read. Rather, it's a belief that the universe is probably without gods. Were Dawkins agnostic, he would be a 3.5, but he believes 0 gods to be far more likely than 1+. But if he admitted this openly he'd have a "burden of proof," oh no

"The probability of a supernatural creator existing is very, very low" is a claim with a burden of proof.