Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument

[Thumper]

This is a personal proposal from Dawkins combining gnosticism/agnosticism and theism/atheism in one scale. It's different from the standard charts.

There are "standard charts?" Which standards committee put these charts out? No, wait, you're just talking about other people's opinions that you prefer.

 

[Thumper]

Belief that the proposition god does exist is false. For starters.

Continue ... what else?

 

[Curious George]

You don't need to believe that the proposition god does exist is false. You just have to not accept it as true with no belief involved. Weak atheist. If you believe that the proposition is false you're a strong atheist.

We can go around in circles on this one ArtieE. You and I view it differently. I understand what you are saying, I think you are incorrect. This does not logically follow. If you evaluate the proposition "god does not exist" as not true you are accepting it is false.

 

[Curious George]

Continue ... what else?

By consequence, that arguments for God's existence are incorrect. By consequence that God does not exist is true. There is a total of three do I need to continue?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

No, I meant negation.


Good.


In the phrase, "Belief in God," God is the subject.

You'll need more than a phrase to have a subject. You'll need a sentence containing that phrase to determine it's role in the sentence.

Consider "Belief in God is salutary." Here, the phrase functions as the subject.

In "I have no belief in God," it is a direct object.

In "I have no opinion about your belief in God," it is an indirect object.

 

[Thumper]

By consequence, that arguments for God's existence are incorrect. By consequence that God does not exist is true. There is a total of three do I need to continue?

You just keep restating the same point yet you seemed to claim that there was a whole system of "beliefs" that went with the idea of atheism. I was curious as to what you considered to be the atheistic system of beliefs?

Does a lack of belief in the existence of faeries have a whole belief system associated with it by chance?

 

[Curious George]

You just keep restating the same point yet you seemed to claim that there was a whole system of "beliefs" that went with the idea of atheism. I was curious as to what you considered to be the atheistic system of beliefs?

Does a lack of belief in the existence of faeries have a whole belief system associated with it by chance?

They are not the same propositions. They are consequences from the evaluation of the first proposition. We can throw in a whole bunch more as well. Each of these propositions and the evaluation regards a belief. But if you want to further distance the lines of reasoning involved: by necessity "something must exist" and by necessity again god can be defined.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The basis for understanding supernatural phenomena is the Old Testament.

Not for me. The ancient Hebrews don't hold a monopoly on the concept. Thor is just as supernatural as the Old Testament god

Read the prophets and what they wrote about God, angels and various other supernatural phenomena.

I have read the prophets and found no value there. What value have you found?

Science cannot explain those stories except to say the prophets lied or they were crazy.

Science has no need to address those stories. Science studies and addresses nature, not words.

 

[Thumper]

They are not the same propositions. They are consequences from the evaluation of the first proposition. We can throw in a whole bunch more as well. Each of these propositions and the evaluation regards a belief. But if you want to further distance the lines of reasoning involved: by necessity "something must exist" and by necessity again god can be defined.

1. You still have not listed any set of "beliefs" which you seemed to claim went with the idea of atheism.

2. Since you mentioned it, please define "god."

 

[Curious George]

You just keep restating the same point yet you seemed to claim that there was a whole system of "beliefs" that went with the idea of atheism. I was curious as to what you considered to be the atheistic system of beliefs?

Does a lack of belief in the existence of faeries have a whole belief system associated with it by chance?

But of course if you don't believe me...you can follow them for yourself. Some flow from each other: i.e. if god does not exist is true then god does exist is false and vice versa, however some do not: i.e. if god does not exist, then arguments for gods existing are incorrect is true; however if arguments for any god existing are incorrect is true, then God existing is not necessarily true or false.

 

[Curious George]

1. You still have not listed any set of "beliefs" which you seemed to claim went with the idea of atheism.

2. Since you mentioned it, please define "god."

1. Sure I have, we are at 5 so far. Do you expect an exhaustive list?

2.

god = an intelligent, immortal entity that has a degree of control over all things in the universe and more control over at least one specific aspect of the universe than any mortal thing.

That work for you?

 

[Blackdog22]

No need for the personal attacks Blackdog, I always assume everyone here is honest and capable of critical thought, at the very least it makes for a far more interesting debate than name calling.

That only betrays that a person's position is based largely on passion rather than reason

Apologies if I came across as attacking you. I was intending to attack the arguments. I didn't say you were dishonest, I said "If you actually want to speak honestly" and I meant that in the general sense. If anyone wants to speak honestly all they can say is "I don't know" until such a time that evidence is made known to them. Until then all people making a claim of absolutes are truly only pretending. It isn't meant to be a knock at you, it just is what it is.

Again, I apologize. I do get passionate, but never truly want to come across as offending or attacking someone.

 

[Falvlun]

Hyperbole. I am resisting being pressured to use a particular word in a way that doesn't represent my thinking, and that becomes anarchy.

Context. That was in response to you saying "why shouldn't they be free to do so" in response to my hypothetical "what if someone defined "cats" as "limbless reptiles".

Your position seems to be as long as you can make someone understand you, it is acceptable to use whatever words or definitions you like. This would be linguistic anarchy, to apply such reasoning everywhere. This wasn't about your definition of "atheism" specifically; it was about this particular argument you used to justify it

Hyperbole again. What is rolling over and playing dead in the context of me telling you how I use a particular word and asking you to try and understand me when I do?

Context, again. This was in response to you saying "Make a constructive suggestion and leave it at that." What should I do if my constructive suggestion is ignored?

You don't need to cooperate or make the effort. It's not important to me that I reach everybody.

So me disagreeing with you means I am not cooperating or making an effort?

Fine. Those answers are covered by my preferred schema:

[1] Yes: Gnostic theist
[2] No: Gnostic atheist
[3] I don't know: Agnostic atheist and agnostic theist according to whether the unknower also believes or not. My method provides more information,since it answers that.

As I mentioned to Artie, the whole gnostic/agnostic schema refers to a different question, and as such, isn't needed at the outset.

Also, where would me and Curious George go? We do not fall under 2 or 3. (We believe gods don't exist, we do not claim to know that god's don't exist.)

Disagree. Those would all be the doing of the reader.My definitions are crystal clear.

Of course. If someone understands, it's because you are an effective communicator. If someone doesn't understand, or disagrees, it's because the reader is uncooperative. Nice set-up you got there.

Correct. I don't require acceptance. Nor do I really understand resistance. I'm not asking you to do anything but understand me. If doing that peacefully and cooperatively is not something you want to do, fine.

Hm. It seems to me that you want me to peacefully and cooperatively understand you. Else why include that last sentence? If understanding is all you want, then what does it matter that I don't think your definition rocks? I've already told you I understand it.

Disagree. You understanding me defines my optimal way to communicate.

I could understand you if you spoke pig Latin, but that wouldn't make it an optimal method of communication. I suggest you rethink this one.

Disagree again. I don't ask you to adopt my usage, just to understand it without all of this objection.

Aha! So mere understanding isn't enough, as I suspected.

 

[Blackdog22]

Correct



Again I acknowledge my faith as such, I do not declare them as undeniable fact as some do evolution

having said that I believe I have extraordinary evidence yes!

So, you truly have no concept of evolution at all huh? I don't mean this to sound rude, its hard to tell over the internet sometimes. However if you dont know the origins of dogs are wolves, and they evolved from wolves, then I am assuming you think pugs were running about, and survived, for around 60 million years? Just, truly think about that for a moment. Have you never heard of interbreeding and how that changes characteristics of an animal like a dog? I find it very odd someone could not believe in basic evolution when its there for literally anyone to see during this day and age.

I would also love to know what this extraordinary evidence you have for God is. It should be better than me being able to go to a dog show and examine each dogs lineage, and seeing with my own eyes how they changed up til this point.

 

[Blackdog22]

Are you suggesting that someone should believe in something which hasn't been defined? Now that's silly.

Of course you should. In fact, you now believe in Leprechauns. Why is that you ask!?!?! Because a Leprechauns is now, defined by me, a carrot. That is correct they are now carrots and if you don't believe in carrots you are a fool sir. An absolute fool!!

 

[Falvlun]

4. I don't know BUT I believe they do.
5. I don't know BUT I believe they don't.

Why do you ignore 3+1 and 3+2?

You cannot combine 3+1 or 3+2.

1 is "I believe that gods exist"
2 is "I believe that gods don't exist."
3 is "I do not believe that gods exist" and "I do not believe that gods don't exist."

They are mutually exclusive.

1 & 2 could then be split into gnostic/agnostic categories. But that isn't necessary to do up front.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Apologies if I came across as attacking you. I was intending to attack the arguments. I didn't say you were dishonest, I said "If you actually want to speak honestly" and I meant that in the general sense. If anyone wants to speak honestly all they can say is "I don't know" until such a time that evidence is made known to them. Until then all people making a claim of absolutes are truly only pretending. It isn't meant to be a knock at you, it just is what it is.

Again, I apologize. I do get passionate, but never truly want to come across as offending or attacking someone.

Well we have common ground in that case, I acknowledge my beliefs as such, faith- and I agree that absolutes are a red flag- we have to question our beliefs- if we are interested in the truth anyway, a person can't question a belief they don't admit having in the first place..




“Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact...

Having said that I can prove one thing- that having completely changed my mind on this before, my opinion is entirely unreliable!

 

[Repox]

Not for me. The ancient Hebrews don't hold a monopoly on the concept. Thor is just as supernatural as the Old Testament god



I have read the prophets and found no value there. What value have you found?



Science has no need to address those stories. Science studies and addresses nature, not words.

I have found value in OT stories because it makes sense for God to establish His holy order on earth. If you don't believe the OT Lord is God, it doesn't work.

OT stories make sense for explaining how his chosen people disobeyed His commandments, and the consequences thereof. I think it is important because it reveals what God requires for a relationship with Him.

 

[Willamena]

You'll need more than a phrase to have a subject. You'll need a sentence containing that phrase to determine it's role in the sentence.

Consider "Belief in God is salutary." Here, the phrase functions as the subject.

In "I have no belief in God," it is a direct object.

In "I have no opinion about your belief in God," it is an indirect object.

While this is all essentially correct, it has strayed off-topic from what initiated it, so if it's alright lets let it die.

 

[Willamena]

You cannot combine 3+1 or 3+2.

1 is "I believe that gods exist"
2 is "I believe that gods don't exist."
3 is "I do not believe that gods exist" and "I do not believe that gods don't exist."

They are mutually exclusive.

1 & 2 could then be split into gnostic/agnostic categories. But that isn't necessary to do up front.

I've tried for years to explain that contradiction, to no avail.