Suppose evolution was refuted, then what?

[Storm]

My point is that atheism is not anti-theist. If it was defined as such I would agree.

Define anti-theist, as I suspect we have different auto-understandings of that word.

But it's like saying something is asexual. It doesn't have a sex. Atheism is the lack of theism not the belief in a lack of theism.

OK, ok, I see your point. That said, (a)sexual is a bad example - it's a function of biology. Theism is a function of cognition. Therefore it is not possible to be legitimately characterized as atheistic with no comprehension of 'theism.'

To run with your example, a rock might technically be asexual, but to insist that it be characterized as such is pedantry. A sponge otoh is scientifically and properly classed as asexual, because it's an organism. Further up the evolutionary chain, a neutered dog is functionally asexual, and further still you have the human sexual orientation.

I respectfully submit that until you have a conscious organism with some idea of theism, the a- is pointless semantic bickering.

That said, while I find the whole discussion a bit silly, I'd compromise on 'agnostic.'

 

[muhammad_isa]

Not believing something is not a belief, by definition. If I say "I don't believe in bigfoot", is that a belief?

I think that you're being pedantic..
An atheist is somebody who claims that Almighty God doesn't exist .. no?

This means that they "believe" that there is some other explanation for our existence.
ie. that's what they believe (or so they claim) ---> a belief !

 

[Tristesse]

I think that you're being pedantic..
An atheist is somebody who claims that Almighty God doesn't exist .. no?

No, not necessarily. The only requirement for atheism is to not believe that a god exist.

This means that they "believe" that there is some other explanation for our existence.
ie. that's what they believe (or so they claim) ---> a belief !

Incorrect again. An atheist doesn't have to have an explanation for our existence, they just might not be convinced of the one most theist propose.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I think that you're being pedantic..
An atheist is somebody who claims that Almighty God doesn't exist .. no?

No. An atheist is someone who does not claim God exists.

This means that they "believe" that there is some other explanation for our existence.
ie. that's what they believe (or so they claim) ---> a belief !

We're not talking about whether or not an atheist believes there is another explanation for our existence, we're talking about whether or not atheism itself is a belief. Which it isn't.

 

[muhammad_isa]

An atheist doesn't have to have an explanation for our existence..

Oh! Some sort of 'special concession', is it?

 

[muhammad_isa]

No. An atheist is someone who does not claim God exists.

Is that your personal definition, or is it universally accepted?

..we're talking about whether or not atheism itself is a belief. Which it isn't.

Well you might see it like that, but as I say .. it's being pedantic, imo.

OK, if you like (as I'm sure you do), you can say that "an atheist deosn't believe in gods" ..
.. but then .. nor do I ! I only believe in God, and He is not "a god", as it would usually be defined.

'A god' could refer to almost anything. No .. I'm referring to "The Creator of the universe"

My belief is that the universe was created..
Your belief (presumably) is that it wasn't.

Atheism & theism are purely labels .. this is what wikipedia has to say:-

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. ...

So, in a narower sense .. it is a belief! (that there are no deities)

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Is that your personal definition, or is it universally accepted?

No definition of anything is "universally accepted", but it is what the very word - in the broadest sense - is defined as. "A" meaning 'without', "theism" meaning 'God belief'. Atheism literally means "without belief in God", and most dictionaries give the definition "the absence/rejection of belief in a God".

Well you might see it like that, but as I say .. it's being pedantic, imo.

No, it isn't. When debating a belief system (or lack of one) it is imperative that you display an understanding of exactly what beliefs (or lack thereof) you are debating. Until you understand that atheism isn't a belief, I do not think you would be capable of contributing to the debate in a meaningful way.

OK, if you like (as I'm sure you do), you can say that "an atheist deosn't believe in gods" ..
.. but then .. nor do I ! I only believe in God, and He is not "a god", as it would usually be defined.

That's not what I said. I said "an atheist is someone who doesn't claim God exists". That includes singular Gods and multiple Gods. It is the position of disbelief with the regards of any number of deities.

'A god' could refer to almost anything. No .. I'm referring to "The Creator of the universe"

That's exactly what God means. You don't seem to have much respect for the concept of definitions.

My belief is that the universe was created..
Your belief (presumably) is that it wasn't.

Atheism & theism are purely labels .. this is what wikipedia has to say:-

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. ...

So, in a narower sense .. it is a belief! (that there are no deities)

Did you notice the qualifier "in a narrower sense", or the first sentence, for that matter?

 

[Tristesse]

Oh! Some sort of 'special concession', is it?

Not at all. If we don't have an explanation, then guess what? We don't have an explanation. Inserting a god to solve a mystery creates an even larger mystery. People who believe that a god is responsible for creating the universe, do so without any evidence to support their claim. There's no "special concession" here.

 

[Photonic]

Define anti-theist, as I suspect we have different auto-understandings of that word.


OK, ok, I see your point. That said, (a)sexual is a bad example - it's a function of biology. Theism is a function of cognition. Therefore it is not possible to be legitimately characterized as atheistic with no comprehension of 'theism.'

To run with your example, a rock might technically be asexual, but to insist that it be characterized as such is pedantry. A sponge otoh is scientifically and properly classed as asexual, because it's an organism. Further up the evolutionary chain, a neutered dog is functionally asexual, and further still you have the human sexual orientation.

I respectfully submit that until you have a conscious organism with some idea of theism, the a- is pointless semantic bickering.

That said, while I find the whole discussion a bit silly, I'd compromise on 'agnostic.'

The only reason we can't really come to an understanding on this is you are failing to realize that your mind automatically categorizes objects under these things. We know a rock can't be theistic any more than anything else inanimate. We ASSUME automatically that these things are atheist, they lack the property of being theistic.

We KNOW a rock is a-sexual, it's inanimate, it has no organic functions! We know a rock is asexual in the same way we know its atheistic. Meaning it lacks such a property.

Organic or sapient has nothing to do with it.

 

[outhouse]

its just heading down that road to debate a atheist as lacking belief.

Or the default position we all are born with, atheism

 

[Storm]

The only reason we can't really come to an understanding on this is you are failing to realize that your mind automatically categorizes objects under these things.

Not at all. I don't see rocks as a/theistic/ agnostic or anything else.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..We don't have an explanation. Inserting a god to solve a mystery creates an even larger mystery.
. . .
People who believe that a god is responsible for creating the universe, do so without any evidence to support their claim.

1. 'a god' could refer to anything at all
2. there most certainly IS evidence .. but you don't accept it

A 'larger mystery' is not created .. it's part of the SAME ONE!

 

[~Amin~]

Besides, without a logically consistent definition of God all the evidence in the world won't do you any good.

That is not totally true, epistemology is important, people have diverse method of approaching things, and we have plenty of evidence which you differ with, to us is our belief, and to you is yours, their is no dispute between ourselves and yourself, we will know the reality of it after a short time(after we leave this world, if indeed we are truthful in our statements).

 

[ImmortalFlame]

1. 'a god' could refer to anything at all

This is why it's important to understand the definitions that people use. "God" is defined specifically to mean "a supernatural agency responsible for the creation of the universe or some element of the universe" in all meaningful debate. Every debate on the existence or nonexistence of God starts with this definition as a baseline. Please try to keep up.

2. there most certainly IS evidence .. but you don't accept it.

Then present it.

A 'larger mystery' is not created .. it's part of the SAME ONE!

No, it isn't. If you answer "where did the Universe come from" with "God", you are left with the ever-more unfalsifiable question of where God came from.

That is not totally true, epistemology is important, people have diverse method of approaching things, and we have plenty of evidence which you differ with, to us is our belief, and to you is yours, their is no dispute between ourselves and yourself, we will know the reality of it after a short time(after we leave this world, if indeed we are truthful in our statements).

I would argue that - although there are many approaches to finding what people may consider "truth" - there are very few ways that are actually any good. The method that has demonstrated, far and away, the best reliability for separating fact from fiction is most undoubtedly science, and the scientific method - as all good methodologies for establishing facts do - requires a working definition of it's subject.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

That is not totally true, epistemology is important, people have diverse method of approaching things, and we have plenty of evidence which you differ with, to us is our belief, and to you is yours, their is no dispute between ourselves and yourself, we will know the reality of it after a short time(after we leave this world, if indeed we are truthful in our statements).

If it were reality we could know it now, though.

 

[~Amin~]

If it were reality we could know it now, though.

That's why i mentioned epistemology, i believe its reality, and i have experienced it,
so through practice it becomes objective to me, but subjective to you, until you try it, sincerely.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

That's why i mentioned epistemology, i believe its reality, and i have experienced it,
so through practice it becomes objective to me, but subjective to you, until you try it, sincerely.

First, kindly don't cast dispersions on my sincerity because we disagree, or because my result was different.

Second, it's not objective if you cannot demonstrate it to another. by definition of the word 'objective'.

I understand you want the word 'objective' to be applicable to your "evidence", but it isn't.

Until it is, it's not evidence.

The fact that we have different results proves it's not objective.

 

[~Amin~]

No, it isn't. If you answer "where did the Universe come from" with "God", you are left with the ever-more unfalsifiable question of where God came from.

if this is an issue for you, then science should also be a problem, because according to science amd physics, matter and energy are also not created.

I would argue that - although there are many approaches to finding what people may consider "truth" - there are very few ways that are actually any good. The method that has demonstrated, far and away, the best reliability for separating fact from fiction is most undoubtedly science, and the scientific method - as all good methodologies for establishing facts do - requires a working definition of it's subject.

Science is very good, but through it, trying to find God is a contradiction, sience can ONLY measure and examine physical objects, and God is not a physical object seen by the human eye, thats why the opening verses of Baqara states;
This is a book; in it is sure guidance, without doubt, those who are God concious.
Who believe in the UNSEEN. Qur'an 2 verse 2,3.
Remember Unseen, science only anylises that which is physical, this DOES not mean we reject science, just that its limited in certain areas.

 

[~Amin~]

First, don't cast dispersions on my sincerity because we disagree, or because my result was different.

I did not cast anything on you.

Second, it's not objective if you cannot demonstrate it to another. by definition of the word 'objective'.

Yes we can but you wont except it, it goes back to epistemology.

I understand you want the word 'objective' to be applicable to your "evidence", but it isn't.

I don't want it to, it absolutely is.

Until it is, it's not evidence.

Yes from your perspective.

The fact that we have different results proves it's not objective.

You could reverse this statement to your self.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I did not cast anything on you.

Well, then you can edit 'sincerely' out of your response above.

Yes we can but you wont except it, it goes back to epistemology.

I probably won't accept it because it doesn't stand up to actual scrutiny; you simply want to describe something using a term that does not actually apply. Either that or you must appeal to solipsism, which is really a coward's way out of debate. Sorry, but that's the way it is. The idea that humans can't know anything for sure is essentially garbage in most respects. We know it close enough as makes no difference. There is no such state as perfection, nor can we ever comb every inch of the universe; to lament that ALL our knowledge is worthless because of such hyperbolic requirements is a rather banal escape clause.

Interesting but

The fact that we have different results proves it's not objective.

reversed is still

The fact that we have different results proves it's not objective.

Kind of an odd tack for you to attempt.

I don't want it to, it absolutely is.

Nope. It's just that you want it to.

Or, you can demonstrate it here and now.

Can't?

You know what that means, right?

Yes from your perspective.

Mere Opinion fallacy too?

No, by the definition of the word you are using.
Words have actual meanings, you know?

You could reverse this statement to your self.

I never make any definitive philosophical statements without first knowing that they are self-reflexive; Ive skewered a great many opponents using this simple point. In other words before I typed this to you I've already reversed it upon myself.

Here's the problem with your statement: reversing it on myself, which by default, I have already done, does not change the outcome. We are discussing your opinion in that sentence on a specific experience of yours, not one of mine. I would never claim such an experience of mine was objective, you see. And your experiences on the subject, are not objective. Alas.