Freethought Nation

Enough of the juvenile BS - that was totally unnecessary. You called me a liar and you were wrong. Then you call me a liar again and you were still wrong. Then you post the nonsense above to antagonize. That's it! And I hate having to do this - anyone is certainly free to disagree with me but If you can't debate without insults and juvenile personal jabs then you don't fit in here. You have no idea what the purpose of this forum is - to discuss the works of Acharya S/Murdock, which you know nothing about. Take some time away and come back next week but you need to chill out. And don't antagonize anyone here. Most everyone here are friends anyway so it's just not necessary at all.

Is atheism the answer? part 1

Is atheism the answer? part 2

Stellar House Publishing

http://tbknews.blogspot.com

http://truthbeknown.com

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube

Now this I don't understand. I happen to consider myself agnostic, and I tend to agree with the assessment that it is "noncommittal". Having spent much of my adult life in some form of sales or another, I am quite adept at being noncommittal.

The trouble is, in reading the above, I don't see how one could be noncommittal, while simultaneously making a "claim" that there is no evidence. To characterize agnosticism as a conviction would seem to contradict the statement that agnosticism is noncommittal. One cannot be noncommittal and commit to a conviction at the same time.

Using the senses described in the original post for atheism, I would consider myself a "weak" agnostic, i.e. I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence one way or the other. I consider myself agnostic precisely because I do not hold any convictions one way or the other as to the existence of a god. In that, I would characterize agnosticism as disbelief, more than belief. I've been meaning to read the thread, "the agnostic fallacy", so I suppose I should at some point, but if it is based on the same reasoning as above, that an agnostic is noncommittal while committing to a conviction, then I suspect I won't find much there that I could be in agreement with.

I was referring to the definition provided by Marc:



I've seen many "agnostics" hold quite a firm conviction that there's not enough evidence to decide whether God exists or not. Usually due to their own lack of knowledge.



Agreed, that's why simply, "noncommittal" is all that is needed to define one who chooses to be agnostic.



Agnostic isn't about beliefs. Gnostic is about knowledge/knowing while the "A" in agnostic is similar to the "A" in atheist i.e. without knowledge, a lack of knowledge i.e. noncommittal either way. Unable to make a decisive decision.

The issue here is that we do actually have ENOUGH evidence to demonstrate with a high probability (around 97-99%) that gods don't exist. We (atheists who adhere to the weak/negative position) don't claim 100% due to the scientific principle of proving a negative given the fact that we can't investigate every nook & cranny of the universe(s) & all its dimensions. And we don't cross the line into believing, having faith or denying the existence of gods so we don't have to carry the responsibility for the 'burden of proof' to substantiate claims that nobody can substantiate.

If the strong/positive crowd make claims that gods don't exist then, it is their responsibility to substantiate the claim - which they cannot do because one cannot prove a negative in this case. If something doesn't exist there will be no evidence for or against its existence whatsoever. So, that's why the strong/positive position is an utterly asinine position.

The weak/negative position (classic, historical basic atheism) keeps the 'burden of proof' permanently in the court of theists forcing them to substantiate their supernatural religious claims. Until they find credible evidence, we have no reason to believe. It is totally unnecessary for atheists to do or claim anything else. That's why the new atheism i.e. strong/positive position is a degradation of the word and only hurts our case.

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube

God damn it! Lost my whole post again !!! I have been debating stuff on the web since 1995 and have built many of my own discussion boards but for some reason have been having bad luck with this one. I think just now when I clicked send I actually had no wireless connection so I got a provider warning page - poof - whole reply gone.

Right, I need to just give a few quick short replies here and then get away to less frustrating things...

So I'm going to break my replies into shorter but multiple posts...



No need for desperate tactics of blind assertion - closing your eyes, pulling the trigger, hoping you'll eliminate your foe

Of course I am going to conclude that, which you quote me concluding, because I am being intellectually consistent. I don't just think that - I have actually concluded that and further I even demonstrated my train of thought. Here, I will just keep laying on the evidence for my conclusion and you I guess will just keep denying the validity of my evidence without presenting any of your own

The most reliably representative meaning of the word Atheist can be looked up in any modern philosophy dictionary. And such definitions can be tested against what the public generally understands the word to be. And that is also how I will use the word.

Penguin Reference - Dictionary of Philosophy: Atheism: The view that there is no divine being, no God. This is the proposition at the centre of the modern debate. In that debate, the opposing sides assume that the existence of God implies the existence of divine providence and the possibility of divine intervention in the world. Essential to atheism in the older sense is not so much the negative answer to the merely theoretical question of the existence of the gods or of God. What is essential is the denial of the existence of a being who takes an interest in mankind, intervening and changing the course of events etc.



Well, here you merely offering circular reasoning, you are making the mistake of asserting to be true precisely that point that remains in question. The point in question, which I am providing heaps of evidence for, is whether atheism is a conviction or not.

In the same way we grow up to choose to be moral and ethical because we were already sufficiently moral and ethical to make those right choices it is true that to lack a belief in God you must first have the conviction that there is no god.

The philosopher Mel Thompson defines atheism: The view that there is no god.

Okay - quick send then onto the next of your post

_________________
You'll see it when you believe it.

When a hammer is your only tool then every problem looks like a nail.

Nies Bohr was at a friend's house and asked "Do you really believe in this?" to which his friend replied "Oh, no. but I am told it works even if you don't believe in it."

Stop telling God what to do with his dice!

The oxford dictionary of Philosophy defines Agnosticism: The view that some proposition is not known, and perhaps cannot be known to be true or false.

The Penguin Reference Dictionary of Philosophy gives a very long definition which I will not include in total but: A theory according to which things within a specified realm are unknowable. Especially: (1) the view that we cannot know whether or not God exists; (2) the view, to be found in positivist theories like those of du Bois-Reymond and Spenser, that ultimate reality is unknowable. Agnosticism could be used in support of religious belief - it was often said that electricity would forever defy scientific explanation.
In the later half of the twentieth century a more radical kind of agnosticism emerged: it was not the view that we do not know the answers but that we do not even know what questions to ask when it comes to certain matters, especially the nature of consciousness and free will.



I'm not going to start also considering the ad hominem tendencies of those Christians who contribute to the definings of these words. I'm only interested in what philosophers and the educated public at large understand the word(s) to mean.



Hang on there, this is looking a little like blatent selectivism? Let's keep it rational





Thank you. But you really should spell out what you mean in such circumstances - especially when as contentious as this issue became. If you do not then you can be perceived as being arrogant. Or that you don't really understand the whole issue and if you were to be eventually shown correct it might be mere chance. I try to be frank but not also arrogant but I do try to paraphrase my arguments if the first versions appear to have not been refuted but merely misunderstood.



Well, firstly, I have no evidence that defining atheism as a conviction draws irrefutable attacks. Secondly, in this day and age I think that with increased powers of logical reasoning the evidence against the existence of Gods provides certainty levels well in excess of 99.9999% and on a scale where nothing can be known for certain 99.9999% is pretty damn certain.



Well, yes, by definition this is true, in the context you assume. But the difference is that I assume another context. One where the concept of God has been introduced.



Well, here you are misrepresenting my argument - an innocent mistake I imagine.



Oh, I love Ayn Rand - I read Capitalism just after I left school. Wonderfull book. Objectivisism. There are some great videos of her speaking about this stuff on youtube...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTmac2fs5HQ

_________________
You'll see it when you believe it.

When a hammer is your only tool then every problem looks like a nail.

Nies Bohr was at a friend's house and asked "Do you really believe in this?" to which his friend replied "Oh, no. but I am told it works even if you don't believe in it."

Stop telling God what to do with his dice!

I'm going to watch this 5 part series on Ayn Rand then I'll come back


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzGFytGBDN8&feature=PlayList&p=61C7D1B912263E75&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=3

_________________
You'll see it when you believe it.

When a hammer is your only tool then every problem looks like a nail.

Nies Bohr was at a friend's house and asked "Do you really believe in this?" to which his friend replied "Oh, no. but I am told it works even if you don't believe in it."

Stop telling God what to do with his dice!

Humm, I don't consider you any sort of foe Marc. I have yet to see where you've countered the quotes provided in the original post here and I don't expect that to happen at all.

You're clearly big on philosophy but I have yet to see where it has helped your arguments on this issue. In fact, it has failed thus far.

Case in point:


Most people aren't going to understand what that says. And just because it's in a dictionary or encyclopedia written &/or edited by biased theists doesn't guarantee it is correct. Take note how they've ignored the Greek root, history and etymology - no wonder so many kids these days are confused on these issues. It's time to correct these errors. Just as the Atheist Alliance International and many other atheist organizations has said. You can't keep omitting all that in favor of a view that doesn't fit the word atheist.

Again, here's a perfect example:



If we want to confuse people with "facts" we use numbers/math/statistics. If we want to confuse them on meanings and arguments we use philosophy/politics. Your modern philosophy dictionary fails to live up to your claim - "most reliably representative meaning of the word Atheist." It's not.

You're just trying to push this new atheism i.e. strong/positive. Which is a major disappointment because it's such a degradation to the word, its meaning and its original intent. It is not an improvement - just the opposite and utterly asinine IMO.

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube

Marc, that's at least two posts you've lost that I'm aware of. I recommend having a notepad open to copy/paste it as a back-up.

I thought the original post here was pretty clear but, of course, I wrote it. There's always room for improvement so what is missing that is so bad that it's causing so many issues? Anyone?

Thanks for the Ayn Rand video links

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube

Oh come on. Alright. Let's try simplify this. I think it is a very important and coincidentally quite fascinating a subject.

Do you have a concise argument in support of your definition of the word "atheism"? Perhaps it has been posted already and I have just missed it. I'm genuinely interested to understand why it is that precisely the word "Atheism" should be limited in definition to precisely only "A lack of belief in God or gods".

I'm quoting from books written by Philosophers who I know to be atheist - Simon Blackburn for example, who is head of philosophy at Oxford University UK. Here is a nice short article by Simon... http://www.investigatingatheism.info/si ... igion.html

_________________
You'll see it when you believe it.

When a hammer is your only tool then every problem looks like a nail.

Nies Bohr was at a friend's house and asked "Do you really believe in this?" to which his friend replied "Oh, no. but I am told it works even if you don't believe in it."

Stop telling God what to do with his dice!

Ah, we are asking similar questions. I'm in a state of shock. Just discovered that one of my favourite philosophers is actually not of Oxford but of Cambridge. Actually, he was lecturing at Oxford but left Oxford 1990 - I probably got the impression from reading one of his books written back in the 80's. His name though is on the most modern Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy which I have referenced already where he states that "Atheism. Either the lack of belief in a god, or the belief that there is none."

http://www.answers.com/topic/atheism

This here is the Simon Blackburn article I meant to link to before. Sorry for the previous irrelevant link. I'll go and edit quick in case it diverts later thread readers. Here is Simon talking on religion and his atheism...
http://www.investigatingatheism.info/si ... igion.html

_________________
You'll see it when you believe it.

When a hammer is your only tool then every problem looks like a nail.

Nies Bohr was at a friend's house and asked "Do you really believe in this?" to which his friend replied "Oh, no. but I am told it works even if you don't believe in it."

Stop telling God what to do with his dice!

You cannot disprove a negative claim such as the flying spaghetti monster but the probability of its existence is sufficiently remote to be considered negative a certainty.

I like the quote of American theologian Paul Tillich who says: The question of the existence of God can be neither asked nor answered. If asked, it is a question about that which by its very nature is above existence, and therefore the answer - whether negative or affirmative - implicitly denies the nature of God. It is as atheistic to affirm the existence of God as to deny it. God is being itself, not a being.

Also, in this sense then, defending God in any way is actually idolatry !!



But you are not talking about what atheist believe. You are talking about a supposed best position of belief they should restrict their claims to in order to shield their true convictions from scrutiny. Seems unnecessarily disingenuous to me.

Anyway, slight chang of subject - more in support of my views which I have shared very often over the years - I am quite delighted to discover that Ayn Rand her self had the same view on the comparisons between religious doctrine and real philosophy. Dash, are you reading this? She explains that biblical philosophy is canned philosophy and religious people accept it because actually all people need philosophy. The premises, she says, for the bibles philosophies, are in the background - they are not given - they have to be taken on faith. Listen to the last 30 seconds or so of this video and then the beginning of the next. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4doTzCs9lEc

_________________
You'll see it when you believe it.

When a hammer is your only tool then every problem looks like a nail.

Nies Bohr was at a friend's house and asked "Do you really believe in this?" to which his friend replied "Oh, no. but I am told it works even if you don't believe in it."

Stop telling God what to do with his dice!

It's all explained in the original post in this thread. I thought it was categorically clear and as concise as it could be.


Yes, I see that. I respect their opinion but I am not persuaded by their views at all. I don't care if a thousand philosophers believe that atheism is a belief &/or denial - that would just mean a thousand philosophers would be mistaken. I haven't seen anything that trumps the quotes provided in the original post. Philosophy may not be the best way to argue this particular argument all the time. It only seems to be muddying the waters, really.

<<The weak/negative position (classic, historical basic atheism) keeps the 'burden of proof' permanently in the court of theists forcing them to substantiate their supernatural religious claims. Until they find credible evidence, we have no reason to believe. It is totally unnecessary for atheists to do or claim anything else. That's why the new atheism i.e. strong/positive position is a degradation of the word and only hurts our case.>>

Atheists don't "believe," their position is an "absence of belief in gods" and the fact that it remains the best position, the most rational position is simply a fringe benefit. There is no restriction because, as we've been beating a dead horse for some time now, atheism isn't accurately defined as a belief or denial as the new atheists i.e. how the strong/positive crowd wants to re-define the word "atheist" and take it over to claim it as their own - that's what is unnecessarily disingenuous. And many large international atheist organizations agree with me on that as the original post makes clear.

* I appreciate all the comments and thoughts here by everyone. I don't see anything convincing enough to alter my views from the original post. So, I think I'll duck out for a while and let the conversation carry on. I have other important business to attend to. All the best...

_________________
2013 Astrotheology Calendar
The Mythicist Position
Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection
Stellar House Publishing at Youtube

Well, I'm certainly interested to keep this one in mind. I call myself an atheist because I know for certain that there is no God. I cannot prove that the universe was not created, that would be dishonest. But there are piles of evidence all around me that allow me to conclude with certainty that there is no God.

Miracles for example - firstly they do not outnumber tragedies. Secondly, they would not be appropriate in a world already carefully designed with an overall pre-planned purpose. And so on and so on...

What God is going to require earthly representatives and then allow self appointed representatives on earth to teach that the greatest evil possible of man, Faith, Willful ignorance, is actually a virtue and that the original pursuit of knowledge was a sin. And allow this to persist for centuries. No thing being a God could maintain any self respect worth living for having permitted such immensely disgracefully evil outlooks.

From my perspective it is kind of okay for others, who merely lack a belief in any gods, to share the same title I have found most appropriately representing my belief - but I cannot see them successfully hijacking that title for their more cowardly intellectually insecure position. I think instead they will later more comfortably migrate over to the agnosticism crowd.

So I can only keep my mind open to watch how this new development proceeds. It sounds like a bunch of undercover theists have infiltrated these atheist organisations but I'll watch with an open mind.

I just wish a convincing argument in favour of this surprisingly new development would be put forward - something to bite into rather than the subjective waffle offered so far. Nonsense references to etymological aspects and the likes.

I'll be watching

_________________
You'll see it when you believe it.

When a hammer is your only tool then every problem looks like a nail.

Nies Bohr was at a friend's house and asked "Do you really believe in this?" to which his friend replied "Oh, no. but I am told it works even if you don't believe in it."

Stop telling God what to do with his dice!

Marc...how can you know for certain there isn't a God?
Don't get me wrong, i want to go on record as someone who believes there are no Gods, but i would say that no-one is CERTAIN as that suggests knowledge, which suggests evidence of which there cannot be if there isn't a God (can't prove a negative).

I agree with Dash, skitzee and freethinka on this. Atheism is for anyone or thing not a theist.

You cannot prove for certain that something, for which there is zero evidence of an actual existance instance of otherwise a mere conceptual description, exists. Discriptions do not "exist" - what they describe, the items, must exist first.

By the way, I am reading philosophy through the Open University - UK. The senior lecturer here is Nigel Warburton. He explains very bluntly that an agnostic is someone who believes that there is not enough evidence to decide whether or not God exists. And then an atheist, in contrast, typically believes that there is conclusive evidence that God does not exist.

I am an atheist precisely because I consider the evidence available to me is indeed conclusive in terms of probabilities per Bertrand Russel's philosophies (mathematician/philosopher). I have considered many items of evidence over the years. For instance. The earth's rotation slows down by 2 seconds every 100,000 years. We can predict then that 380 million years ago each year would have been about 396 days and each day about 22 hours. Coral fossils from ground radio-metrically dated to 380 million years back confirm, by daily growth rings and yearly growth rings, that the year was in fact 400 days and the day in fact 21.9 hours. Close enough to confirm that our dating systems, regarding the age of the earth, are valid. Radiometric system agrees with the tidal drag theory's calculations. No creationist can argue against that without committing a fallacy. Now, the Cambrian dates back from 543 million years ago - worms, sponges, jelly fish then along toward up to 250 million years ago we had Jawed fish and land plants, tatrapods, reptile's and finally mammals. Then birds with mammals through the Jurassic. Finally, very very recently, humans branch from other primates. With the entire course of evolution pressed into a single year - the earliest bacteria appeared in march and the humans at 6am on December 31st. The Golden age of Greece just 30 seconds before midnight. Now tell me, where was the worship of God at 6am on December 31st and why does the bible fail hopelessly anachronistically? What God is going to make that much of a fool of itself?

You want to know why evolution is a fully fledged theory on equal standing to the theory of gravity or the theory of ohms law? Look up the predictions made regarding intermediate species between Acanthostega Gunnari and Eustenopteron Foordi from 365 and 385 million years ago.

So creationists want to slip between different senses of the word "belief" in order to demonstrate that atheism is also a belief in the way that theism is. Okay, let's grant them that sense of the word. What does it mean? Well, it means that they implicitly acknowledge being agnostic and not in fact theistic. If they are willing to accept atheism as a belief equal to their faith then they both implicitly inform us of the precise state of their own theistic belief and they implicitly accept that a 50% chance exists either way regarding the truth likelihoods. If they are willing to start at the 50% point then watch how all the evidence, such as evolution, quickly gobbles up more and more of their 50% chance of validity.



I wonder if Freethink would agree that you have understood him/her?

_________________
You'll see it when you believe it.

When a hammer is your only tool then every problem looks like a nail.

Nies Bohr was at a friend's house and asked "Do you really believe in this?" to which his friend replied "Oh, no. but I am told it works even if you don't believe in it."

Stop telling God what to do with his dice!