melkster, i think you're mistaken. I've always been taught that atheism is: the belief that there is no god/s
Etymology is on the side of "without belief in a god." That's what the "a-" prefix means. See: amoral vs. immoral
edit: woa didn't realize there was another page and a half there. Didn't realize the thread had picked up that much.
p.s. you can wander in to any D&D thread more than 10 pages long and bitch that nobody is changing their mind. It's very rare for one side, or even one person on that side, to wave the white flag. Probably easier to take your blood pressure meds and not read the thread in the first place, though.
Bama on
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
melkster, i think you're mistaken. I've always been taught that atheism is: the belief that there is no god/s
Etymology is on the side of "without belief in a god." That's what the "a-" prefix means. See: amoral vs. immoral
Historical usage paints a slightly different story, with atheists being used as a sort of synonym to "heretic, blackguard, immoral person" and a range of other things. Etymology isn't a great guide.
Personally, I think A) the two mean the same thing in almost every context of their usage, certainly in the context of the usual debates the appropriate use of terms should be evaluated by balancing the descriptive utility against the overhead of complexity. In this case, I think the latter vastly outweighs the former in the case of both "hard/strong" atheism and the agnostic/atheist axes.
one can prove that something doesn't exist by showing that it doesn't figure in the most consistent, powerful, and explanatorily deep account of the world. Whether geese or god actually do figure in such an account is rather immaterial to the point that failing to figure in such an account counts as evidence of absence.
There is a difference between:
1) I have articulated that X is not a component of the most consistent, powerful, and explanatorily deep account of that-which-is-the-case.
2) I have articulated that X does not exist.
And the difference is more than word length.
You are equating: "is not a component of the most consistent, powerful, and explanatorily deep account of that-which-is-the-case" with "does not exist".
And you're smart enough to know that is a completely fallacious equivocation.
melkster, i think you're mistaken. I've always been taught that atheism is: the belief that there is no god/s
Etymology is on the side of "without belief in a god." That's what the "a-" prefix means. See: amoral vs. immoral
Historical usage paints a slightly different story, with atheists being used as a sort of synonym to "heretic, blackguard, immoral person" and a range of other things.
Personaly, I think the two mean the same thing in almost every context of their usage, certainly in the context of the usual debates.
I certainly agree and honestly I shouldn't have even contributed to that particular debate. In any case, it's almost always better to set working definitions for the purposes of a particular debate and move on from there. Of course, IIRC, this thread was started specifically to argue definitions, so I'm not sure what I thought would happen.
I think "teapot agnostic" might be the trigger words for me to kill someone. What an awful term that is.
Neva on
SC2 Beta: Neva.ling
"Everyone who is capable of logical thought should be able to see why you shouldn't sell lifetime subscriptions to an MMO. Cell phone companies and drug dealers don't offer lifetime subscriptions either, guess why?" - Mugaaz
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
You are equating: "is not a component of the most consistent, powerful, and explanatorily deep account of that-which-is-the-case" with "does not exist".
I'm saying that the former gives us reason to believe the latter.
It's true that reason could turn out to be wrong in some particular instance, but that's neither here nor there.
MrMister on
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
melkster, i think you're mistaken. I've always been taught that atheism is: the belief that there is no god/s
Etymology is on the side of "without belief in a god." That's what the "a-" prefix means. See: amoral vs. immoral
Historical usage paints a slightly different story, with atheists being used as a sort of synonym to "heretic, blackguard, immoral person" and a range of other things.
Personaly, I think the two mean the same thing in almost every context of their usage, certainly in the context of the usual debates.
I certainly agree and honestly I shouldn't have even contributed to that particular debate. In any case, it's almost always better to set working definitions for the purposes of a particular debate and move on from there. Of course, IIRC, this thread was started specifically to argue definitions, so I'm not sure what I thought would happen.
You are equating: "is not a component of the most consistent, powerful, and explanatorily deep account of that-which-is-the-case" with "does not exist".
I'm saying that the former gives us reason to believe the latter.
The former would not give a reason to believe the latter. The reason for the latter's not being included in the former would be a reason.
But no such reason can be given; that is the whole point of "proof of a universal negative is impossible". There is no reason for a thing's not being included; there are only reasons for a thing's inclusion.
And I was not being glib with my last remark. If Hamhamj or someone made your post I could understand their typing that sort of thing given what I understand their intellectual capabilities to be.
But I think you really do understand the flaw in what you typed.
My atheism goes like this: even if there were proof of a Christian God, I would probably choose not to worship Him.
No offence to other Christians, but the religion and all it's done to world history up to the very present is awful.
Without getting into that quite dubious claim, how is that not offensive to christians?
It's the same as "well I'm not racist, but maaaaaaaaan are black people dumb!"
No offense in this context means that Chia isn't trying to be edgy and irreverent*. It's indicating that she isn't trying to be a jerk. It's essentially punctuation indicating the tone by which the rest of the statement is to be read.
And it's nothing like your analogy.
* Contra me, who believes irreverence in such matters is a net good and strives for such things. Or contra random angry teenager atheist who likes calling god a dick.
My atheism goes like this: even if there were proof of a Christian God, I would probably choose not to worship Him.
No offence to other Christians, but the religion and all it's done to world history up to the very present is awful.
Without getting into that quite dubious claim, how is that not offensive to christians?
It's the same as "well I'm not racist, but maaaaaaaaan are black people dumb!"
No offense in this context means that Chia isn't trying to be edgy and irreverent*. It's indicating that she isn't trying to be a jerk. It's essentially punctuation indicating the tone by which the rest of the statement is to be read.
And it's nothing like your analogy.
* Contra me, who believes irreverence in such matters is a net good and strives for such things. Or contra random angry teenager atheist who likes calling god a dick.
"No offense, but" ALWAYS means whatever follows will be offensive.
Usually that's because they aren't actually trying to not be offensive. In this case I think that there's just no polite way to say it: the Christian God is a dick.
Phoenix-D on
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
My atheism goes like this: even if there were proof of a Christian God, I would probably choose not to worship Him.
No offence to other Christians, but the religion and all it's done to world history up to the very present is awful.
Without getting into that quite dubious claim, how is that not offensive to christians?
It's the same as "well I'm not racist, but maaaaaaaaan are black people dumb!"
No offense in this context means that Chia isn't trying to be edgy and irreverent*. It's indicating that she isn't trying to be a jerk. It's essentially punctuation indicating the tone by which the rest of the statement is to be read.
And it's nothing like your analogy.
* Contra me, who believes irreverence in such matters is a net good and strives for such things. Or contra random angry teenager atheist who likes calling god a dick.
No offense
but I disagree
With all due respect, that's the kind of thing someone like YOU would say.
I'm not trying to be edgy dick. After posting it I did think it was a big mistake to add that last line about offending people, that's a dick move which I'm sorry for.
But I question the limits of a persons atheism if he/she believes there is no god until they find that there is proof of one. And this is where things get murky, because say hypothetically God did make his presence known, this opens up a whole other can of worms of whether the God is Christian, or Islamic, etc. I would feel more secure to know that I live in a universe not controlled by an omnipotent, omnipresent Christian God, because throughout history and the lack of His presence I would begin to question the ethics of a God. It's not acting like your better than God, it's asking why there was no intervention durring some of the darkest periods of history commited under the guise of religious fervor.
Chia Mountain on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Schlitz!
0
Options
reVerseAttack and Dethrone GodRegistered Userregular
edited April 2010
Well, if it was ever proven without a shadow of a doubt that there was a God, I'd stop being an atheist, but I wouldn't suddenly start worshipping the God in question.
reVerse on
0
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
But no such reason can be given; that is the whole point of "proof of a universal negative is impossible". There is no reason for a thing's not being included; there are only reasons for a thing's inclusion.
That isn't really an argument so much as a restatement. It's also not true. If it were, we would have an insane ontology, where Russel's teapot claimed a place at the table next to dogs and cats.
I'm not advocating some extreme or ridiculous reductionism, where everything either has to be quarks and spin or it can't exist. I'm instead making the quite modest claim that theoretical virtues like simplicity, power, and explanatory depth do, in fact, constrain what it is reasonable to believe.
MrMister on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
My atheism goes like this: even if there were proof of a Christian God, I would probably choose not to worship Him.
No offence to other Christians, but the religion and all it's done to world history up to the very present is awful.
Without getting into that quite dubious claim, how is that not offensive to christians?
It's the same as "well I'm not racist, but maaaaaaaaan are black people dumb!"
No offense in this context means that Chia isn't trying to be edgy and irreverent*. It's indicating that she isn't trying to be a jerk. It's essentially punctuation indicating the tone by which the rest of the statement is to be read.
And it's nothing like your analogy.
* Contra me, who believes irreverence in such matters is a net good and strives for such things. Or contra random angry teenager atheist who likes calling god a dick.
No offense
but I disagree
With all due respect, that's the kind of thing someone like YOU would say.
Dearest Apotheosis;
That a man of intellect forged perhaps by hesperus himself, it always surprises me that, would it not be so, you, sincerest of sirs, most gentle of gentlemen, ought say so much when, upon investigation, so little of substance appears. This could, of course, be a fault of mine. I, so weak in wit and starved in inspiration, have to constantly read over and over your arguments to try and find out the wisdom in your wanderings. And they must be there, because I know that you are so smart, and yet your arguments betray that fact. Verily, it must be a fault of my own, because I cannot imagine that a man whom I peg as so smart could be so seemingly and utterly wrong in all accounts. Please, help me see the light and learn me to sharpen my critical skills, if only to finally tell other just how your arguments are not at all moronic.
With deepest heart and keenest ear, yours truly and forever
Poldy
But no such reason can be given; that is the whole point of "proof of a universal negative is impossible". There is no reason for a thing's not being included; there are only reasons for a thing's inclusion.
That isn't really an argument so much as a restatement. It's also not true. If it were, we would have an insane ontology, where Russel's teapot claimed a place at the table next to dogs and cats.
I'm not advocating some extreme or ridiculous reductionism, where everything either has to be quarks and spin or it can't exist. I'm instead making the quite modest claim that theoretical virtues like simplicity, power, and explanatory depth do, in fact, constrain what it is reasonable to believe.
We would not have an insane ontology. We would have an ontology of those things for which there is proof / justification / reason.
However, and this is the point, there is a difference between "X is not in our ontology" and "X does not exist".
You can state that god is not in your ontology. But you cannot state that god does not exist.
But no such reason can be given; that is the whole point of "proof of a universal negative is impossible". There is no reason for a thing's not being included; there are only reasons for a thing's inclusion.
That isn't really an argument so much as a restatement. It's also not true. If it were, we would have an insane ontology, where Russel's teapot claimed a place at the table next to dogs and cats.
I'm not advocating some extreme or ridiculous reductionism, where everything either has to be quarks and spin or it can't exist. I'm instead making the quite modest claim that theoretical virtues like simplicity, power, and explanatory depth do, in fact, constrain what it is reasonable to believe.
Teeeeeeeechnically, were God to exist, he would be simplicity. And power too.
But no such reason can be given; that is the whole point of "proof of a universal negative is impossible". There is no reason for a thing's not being included; there are only reasons for a thing's inclusion.
That isn't really an argument so much as a restatement. It's also not true. If it were, we would have an insane ontology, where Russel's teapot claimed a place at the table next to dogs and cats.
I'm not advocating some extreme or ridiculous reductionism, where everything either has to be quarks and spin or it can't exist. I'm instead making the quite modest claim that theoretical virtues like simplicity, power, and explanatory depth do, in fact, constrain what it is reasonable to believe.
Teeeeeeeechnically, were God to exist, he would be simplicity. And power too.
Would it thus be reasonable to believe in him?
I thought God was Nature.
_J_ on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
How do you call it when I not even don't believe in god, but don't see any reason for god existing?
Well if you think religion does harm to society you would be an antitheist.
I don't think that's what he's asking. I think he's an old school atheist in the style of Russell and Ayer -- it is fruitless to even talk about God because it is not reasonable. Why not talk about how awesome all of this reasonable stuff like science and literature is.
Your claim is kind of wrong. Antitheist would be someone opposed to God, in like a Milton's Satan kind of way. Antitheism would also not really be against religion. Religion is a social structure for the worship and observance of the Godhead and indoctrination of doxology. One can be a theist and not be religious. Being against religion would just be anti-religion.
But no such reason can be given; that is the whole point of "proof of a universal negative is impossible". There is no reason for a thing's not being included; there are only reasons for a thing's inclusion.
That isn't really an argument so much as a restatement. It's also not true. If it were, we would have an insane ontology, where Russel's teapot claimed a place at the table next to dogs and cats.
I'm not advocating some extreme or ridiculous reductionism, where everything either has to be quarks and spin or it can't exist. I'm instead making the quite modest claim that theoretical virtues like simplicity, power, and explanatory depth do, in fact, constrain what it is reasonable to believe.
Teeeeeeeechnically, were God to exist, he would be simplicity. And power too.
Would it thus be reasonable to believe in him?
I thought God was Nature.
Well god would be an indivisible substance, correct? He would be the only simple substance.
Believing in the existence of something without having any proof is not logical, because logic requires proof.
Just like you can't expect a religious person to be logical about the subject, you can't expect a non-religious person to have faith in a supernatural being.
Protein Shakes on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
Believing in the existence of something without having any proof is not logical, because logic requires proof.
Just like you can't expect a religious person to be logical about the subject, you can't expect a non-religious person to have faith in a supernatural being.
Logic doesn't require proof.
All bats are rats.
All rats are cats.
All bats are cats.
That's a logical statement, but it doesn't have much proof.
Believing in the existence of something without having any proof is not logical, because logic requires proof.
Just like you can't expect a religious person to be logical about the subject, you can't expect a non-religious person to have faith in a supernatural being.
Logic doesn't require proof.
All bats are rats.
All rats are cats.
All bats are cats.
That's a logical statement, but it doesn't have much proof.
Logic doesn't mean you can claim anything you want and it becomes true.
You start with proving that all bats are rats. Each premise requires proof of its own. If both premises are proven to be true, then the conclusion that depends on those premises is also true assuming it follows logical reasoning.
No offense but the god Podly worships is the only deity on record to have advocated genocide
Not true. I am fairly sure that Thor advocated the extermination of giants.
I did not know that. I rescind my statement; Yahweh is one of two gods to advocate genocide, in his case the genocide of the the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, along with any cities in the holy land established post-genocide that revert to non-Hebrew religion; in Thor's case, the genocide of fictional giants.
Qingu on
0
Options
Podlyyou unzipped me! it's all coming back! i don't like it!Registered Userregular
Believing in the existence of something without having any proof is not logical, because logic requires proof.
Just like you can't expect a religious person to be logical about the subject, you can't expect a non-religious person to have faith in a supernatural being.
Logic doesn't require proof.
All bats are rats.
All rats are cats.
All bats are cats.
That's a logical statement, but it doesn't have much proof.
Logic doesn't mean you can claim anything you want and it becomes true.
You start with proving that all bats are rats. Each premise requires proof of its own. If both premises are proven to be true, then the conclusion that depends on those premises is also true assuming it follows logical reasoning.
"Logic" and "Reason" are two distinct things. Logic is the study of the formal coherence of truth. Whether or not something is the case, my example above is logically valid. Surely it is not reasonable, because reason is the thought-process of evaluating the actuality of a belief. Logical structures have to be proved, but statements that are well-formed formulas need not be proved to be logically valid.
Believing in the existence of something without having any proof is not logical, because logic requires proof.
Just like you can't expect a religious person to be logical about the subject, you can't expect a non-religious person to have faith in a supernatural being.
Logic doesn't require proof.
All bats are rats.
All rats are cats.
All bats are cats.
That's a logical statement, but it doesn't have much proof.
Logic doesn't mean you can claim anything you want and it becomes true.
You start with proving that all bats are rats. Each premise requires proof of its own. If both premises are proven to be true, then the conclusion that depends on those premises is also true assuming it follows logical reasoning.
"Logic" and "Reason" are two distinct things. Logic is the study of the formal coherence of truth. Whether or not something is the case, my example above is logically valid. Surely it is not reasonable, because reason is the thought-process of evaluating the actuality of a belief. Logical structures have to be proved, but statements that are well-formed formulas need not be proved to be logically valid.
So how do you prove, using strictly logic, that god exists?
Premise: Life is too complex to have developed on its own.
Conclusion: Therefore, a supernatural being must exist who have developed said life.
So how do you prove, using strictly logic, that god exists?
Premise: Life is too complex to have developed on its own.
Conclusion: Therefore, a supernatural being must exist who have developed said life.
?
well the famous one is the ontological argument. Kant really did that one in by saying existence is not a predicate, but Heidegger (an atheist) got a ton of ground out of that and showed how, if this is the case, then any thinking being believes in God.
There are no 100% successful syllogistic arguments for the existence of god, but there are also no 100% successful ones against his existence, either.
Posts
edit: woa didn't realize there was another page and a half there. Didn't realize the thread had picked up that much.
p.s. you can wander in to any D&D thread more than 10 pages long and bitch that nobody is changing their mind. It's very rare for one side, or even one person on that side, to wave the white flag. Probably easier to take your blood pressure meds and not read the thread in the first place, though.
Historical usage paints a slightly different story, with atheists being used as a sort of synonym to "heretic, blackguard, immoral person" and a range of other things. Etymology isn't a great guide.
Personally, I think A) the two mean the same thing in almost every context of their usage, certainly in the context of the usual debates
There is a difference between:
1) I have articulated that X is not a component of the most consistent, powerful, and explanatorily deep account of that-which-is-the-case.
2) I have articulated that X does not exist.
And the difference is more than word length.
You are equating: "is not a component of the most consistent, powerful, and explanatorily deep account of that-which-is-the-case" with "does not exist".
And you're smart enough to know that is a completely fallacious equivocation.
"Everyone who is capable of logical thought should be able to see why you shouldn't sell lifetime subscriptions to an MMO. Cell phone companies and drug dealers don't offer lifetime subscriptions either, guess why?" - Mugaaz
I'm saying that the former gives us reason to believe the latter.
It's true that reason could turn out to be wrong in some particular instance, but that's neither here nor there.
The former would not give a reason to believe the latter. The reason for the latter's not being included in the former would be a reason.
But no such reason can be given; that is the whole point of "proof of a universal negative is impossible". There is no reason for a thing's not being included; there are only reasons for a thing's inclusion.
And I was not being glib with my last remark. If Hamhamj or someone made your post I could understand their typing that sort of thing given what I understand their intellectual capabilities to be.
But I think you really do understand the flaw in what you typed.
No offence to other Christians, but the religion and all it's done to world history up to the very present is awful.
Schlitz!
Without getting into that quite dubious claim, how is that not offensive to christians?
It's the same as "well I'm not racist, but maaaaaaaaan are black people dumb!"
That's not "there is no god". That's just "i'm better than having to believe in the god which may exist."
you're confusing atheism with hubris.
No offense in this context means that Chia isn't trying to be edgy and irreverent*. It's indicating that she isn't trying to be a jerk. It's essentially punctuation indicating the tone by which the rest of the statement is to be read.
And it's nothing like your analogy.
* Contra me, who believes irreverence in such matters is a net good and strives for such things. Or contra random angry teenager atheist who likes calling god a dick.
If it was hubris his reasoning would have been "I'm better than you guys" not "You guys have done a lot of fucked up shit."
It's not hubris, it's disdain.
No offense
but I disagree
Usually that's because they aren't actually trying to not be offensive. In this case I think that there's just no polite way to say it: the Christian God is a dick.
With all due respect, that's the kind of thing someone like YOU would say.
But I question the limits of a persons atheism if he/she believes there is no god until they find that there is proof of one. And this is where things get murky, because say hypothetically God did make his presence known, this opens up a whole other can of worms of whether the God is Christian, or Islamic, etc. I would feel more secure to know that I live in a universe not controlled by an omnipotent, omnipresent Christian God, because throughout history and the lack of His presence I would begin to question the ethics of a God. It's not acting like your better than God, it's asking why there was no intervention durring some of the darkest periods of history commited under the guise of religious fervor.
Schlitz!
That isn't really an argument so much as a restatement. It's also not true. If it were, we would have an insane ontology, where Russel's teapot claimed a place at the table next to dogs and cats.
I'm not advocating some extreme or ridiculous reductionism, where everything either has to be quarks and spin or it can't exist. I'm instead making the quite modest claim that theoretical virtues like simplicity, power, and explanatory depth do, in fact, constrain what it is reasonable to believe.
Dearest Apotheosis;
That a man of intellect forged perhaps by hesperus himself, it always surprises me that, would it not be so, you, sincerest of sirs, most gentle of gentlemen, ought say so much when, upon investigation, so little of substance appears. This could, of course, be a fault of mine. I, so weak in wit and starved in inspiration, have to constantly read over and over your arguments to try and find out the wisdom in your wanderings. And they must be there, because I know that you are so smart, and yet your arguments betray that fact. Verily, it must be a fault of my own, because I cannot imagine that a man whom I peg as so smart could be so seemingly and utterly wrong in all accounts. Please, help me see the light and learn me to sharpen my critical skills, if only to finally tell other just how your arguments are not at all moronic.
With deepest heart and keenest ear, yours truly and forever
Poldy
I give you a Skippy Badge though.
weeeeeeee!
We would not have an insane ontology. We would have an ontology of those things for which there is proof / justification / reason.
However, and this is the point, there is a difference between "X is not in our ontology" and "X does not exist".
You can state that god is not in your ontology. But you cannot state that god does not exist.
That's the difference.
Teeeeeeeechnically, were God to exist, he would be simplicity. And power too.
Would it thus be reasonable to believe in him?
Not true. I am fairly sure that Thor advocated the extermination of giants.
Well if you think religion does harm to society you would be an antitheist.
I thought God was Nature.
I don't think that's what he's asking. I think he's an old school atheist in the style of Russell and Ayer -- it is fruitless to even talk about God because it is not reasonable. Why not talk about how awesome all of this reasonable stuff like science and literature is.
Your claim is kind of wrong. Antitheist would be someone opposed to God, in like a Milton's Satan kind of way. Antitheism would also not really be against religion. Religion is a social structure for the worship and observance of the Godhead and indoctrination of doxology. One can be a theist and not be religious. Being against religion would just be anti-religion.
Well god would be an indivisible substance, correct? He would be the only simple substance.
Believing in the existence of something without having any proof is not logical, because logic requires proof.
Just like you can't expect a religious person to be logical about the subject, you can't expect a non-religious person to have faith in a supernatural being.
Logic doesn't require proof.
All bats are rats.
All rats are cats.
All bats are cats.
That's a logical statement, but it doesn't have much proof.
Logic doesn't mean you can claim anything you want and it becomes true.
You start with proving that all bats are rats. Each premise requires proof of its own. If both premises are proven to be true, then the conclusion that depends on those premises is also true assuming it follows logical reasoning.
"Logic" and "Reason" are two distinct things. Logic is the study of the formal coherence of truth. Whether or not something is the case, my example above is logically valid. Surely it is not reasonable, because reason is the thought-process of evaluating the actuality of a belief. Logical structures have to be proved, but statements that are well-formed formulas need not be proved to be logically valid.
So how do you prove, using strictly logic, that god exists?
Premise: Life is too complex to have developed on its own.
Conclusion: Therefore, a supernatural being must exist who have developed said life.
?
i know i've said it before
i'm so far removed from theism at this point that even a label seems silly
well the famous one is the ontological argument. Kant really did that one in by saying existence is not a predicate, but Heidegger (an atheist) got a ton of ground out of that and showed how, if this is the case, then any thinking being believes in God.
There are no 100% successful syllogistic arguments for the existence of god, but there are also no 100% successful ones against his existence, either.