|
Author
|
Topic: Atheism isn't a belief?
|
PurpleYouko
Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: 11-11-2004
|
|
Message 32 of 329 (234098)
08-17-2005 12:40 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by Trump won
08-16-2005 9:17 PM
|
|
Definition of Atheist
The definition of Atheist is not quite as simple as some peopple think. The common perception seems to be that an atheist believes that there is no god. That is simply not true of all atheists. A good few simply lack a belief in god. I am with Berberry on this. I don't believe that there is a god. I don't believe that there isn't a god. I am utterly indifferent as to whether he exists or not. If I was asked to come down on one side of the fence or the other I would have to say that based on known facts and evidence, it is extremly unlikely that he exists because over the entire course of the existence of the universe (however it began), he has left absolutely not one shred of unambiguous evidence of actually existing. 4 billion years (6000 if you are a YEC) without leaving a mark anywhere is a pretty neat trick IMO. I have absolutely zero reason to believe yet I also cannot prove otherwise. In exactly the same way that I cannot prove the non-existence of the tooth fairy or the easter bunny. I therefore conclude that the probability of god existing is almost but not quite zero. my position is weak atheist by most definitions If you want a better definition of Atheist check this site out.
quote:
Weak atheism, also known as implicit atheism, is the absence of belief concerning the existence of deities, without the positive assertion that they do not exist. A weak atheist may however claim that given sufficient lack of evidence, nonexistence is most likely. An argument commonly associated with the weak atheism position is that of rationalism: any claims and assertions, and the beliefs arising thereof, must be justified, and not taken on faith. Theists make the positive claim that a particular god and/or deities exist. Weak atheists do not assert the contrary, but merely withhold their assent from the theists' claim. Some weak atheists simply have no opinion on the issue, either because they have not considered it, or because they find the arguments and evidence more or less equally compelling on both sides. Others, having considered the arguments and evidence, may doubt the existence of deities but are unwilling to assert no deities exist. They may feel it is not possible to prove a negative; that the strong atheist has not fulfilled his burden of proof any more than the theist; and that faith is at present required to assert or deny theism, making both theism and strong atheism untenable. The epistemological position that it is not known, and possibly not knowable, whether or not deities exist is known as agnosticism. This view is not equivalent to weak atheism, as agnosticism can also be subscribed to by theists who hold their beliefs on faith. However agnosticism is often the basis for weak atheism, a position sometimes called agnostic atheism. For a discussion of agnosticism and its variants, see: agnosticism, weak agnosticism, strong agnosticism, agnostic atheism.
(emphasis added) I kind of like this definition.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by Trump won, posted 08-16-2005 9:17 PM | | Trump won has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 39 by iano, posted 08-17-2005 2:13 PM | | PurpleYouko has replied |
|
PurpleYouko
Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: 11-11-2004
|
|
|
Message 56 of 329 (234184)
08-17-2005 4:39 PM
|
Reply to: Message 39 by iano
08-17-2005 2:13 PM
|
|
Re: Definition of Atheist
Iano writes: If that's your definition of an athiest, PY, what's your definition of an agnostic? I will make do with the one that I already provided in my last post.
from my previous quote writes: The epistemological position that it is not known, and possibly not knowable, whether or not deities exist is known as agnosticism. This view is not equivalent to weak atheism, as agnosticism can also be subscribed to by theists who hold their beliefs on faith. However agnosticism is often the basis for weak atheism, a position sometimes called agnostic atheism. For a discussion of agnosticism and its variants, see: agnosticism, weak agnosticism, strong agnosticism, agnostic atheism. I see the major difference between Agnostic and weak Atheist as this. An Agnostic has equal belief in god and in no god. (This could well be none in either case) An Atheist has NO belief in either. However I would go as far as to say that most, if not all, weak atheists would say (as I did above) that they conclude that there is almost zero chance that god exists so this puts them a little away from the exact center position occupied by the Agnostic. The difference is quite subtle IMO.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 39 by iano, posted 08-17-2005 2:13 PM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 69 by iano, posted 08-18-2005 6:32 AM | | PurpleYouko has replied |
|
PurpleYouko
Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: 11-11-2004
|
|
|
Message 77 of 329 (234415)
08-18-2005 9:21 AM
|
Reply to: Message 69 by iano
08-18-2005 6:32 AM
|
|
Re: Definition of Atheist
Zero chance on what basis? Zero evidence I'll warrant.
Yup.
But there is zero naturalistic evidence for why and how we are here - yet we are here.
Haven't got the faintest idea. Maybe one day we will find out.
If zero evidence either way then the athiest is indeed in the middle position.
Good point. If it were based entirely on empirical evidence, I would have to agree with you.
To have a sway either way involves either a reason or blind assumption. If blind assumption/faith/belief - call it what you will - then okay. If reason what is that?
My reason is that in the past, everything that has ever been successfully explained about anything has invariably been explained by science. God has never explained anything. Since past experience (making predictions of outcomes based on the fact that a thing has always happened in a given way) is one of the cornerstones of the scientific method then this leads me to conclude the the most probable scenario is that science will eventually come up with a perfectly valid explanation for life, the universe and everything. Who knows though? Maybe the conclusion they reach will actually be that "Goddidit" after all. Until then I will trust only what the evidence tells me and the simple fact is that we ARE here and there is NO evidence of god. Up till now, EVERYTHING has had a valid naturalistic explanation. Without very strong evidence there is absolutely no reason why I should believe that this will change. That isn't faith! That is simple logic.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 69 by iano, posted 08-18-2005 6:32 AM | | iano has not replied |
|
PurpleYouko
Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: 11-11-2004
|
|
|
Message 78 of 329 (234418)
08-18-2005 9:25 AM
|
Reply to: Message 70 by iano
08-18-2005 6:41 AM
|
|
Re: Considering investigating God?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gaw-snow writes:
Do you believe in IPU?
Tell me what it is GS and I'll tell you if I believe it. If it is anything to do with Ocams Razor though, I've already indicated why I think that that is an insufficent support of the atheist postition.
FYI The IPU is the Invisible Pink Unicorn. A notion that has precisely the same amount of evidence as God. This message has been edited by PurpleYouko, 08-18-2005 09:26 AM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 70 by iano, posted 08-18-2005 6:41 AM | | iano has not replied |
|
PurpleYouko
Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: 11-11-2004
|
|
|
Message 80 of 329 (234435)
08-18-2005 10:13 AM
|
Reply to: Message 79 by iano
08-18-2005 9:40 AM
|
|
Re: This shouldn't be so hard people
If its " I have no position and don't care" then it's a-everything (at least until Purple Youko comes back)
I am always the awkward one  I think it is because I am making an effort to actually figure out where I really stand on this stuff and why. Your posts really get me thinking. A lot more than any creationist I have encountered previously. I don't always agree with your logical steps and conclusions but at least it looks like you are thinking it through.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 79 by iano, posted 08-18-2005 9:40 AM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 84 by iano, posted 08-18-2005 11:31 AM | | PurpleYouko has replied |
|
PurpleYouko
Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: 11-11-2004
|
|
|
Message 87 of 329 (234460)
08-18-2005 11:42 AM
|
Reply to: Message 84 by iano
08-18-2005 11:31 AM
|
|
Re: This shouldn't be so hard people
when faced with reasoned argument I must try and figure out how the 'knowledge' that God did (the answer) can be reconciled with how and why he did it
This is where I have the most trouble. Your logic must always be biased because you have to reconcile the fact that you know god exists, with whatever evidence (or lack of) is available. If you refuse to even entertain the possibility that god might not exist then you will never be able to understand the Atheist's arguments or position. Keeping this possibility open should not weaken your faith one little bit but it would allow you to see both sides of the argument. My position is that I will continue to allow that god might exist, no matter how unlikely that seems to me. This allows me a wider perspective to look at the available evidence without (as far as possible) bias.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 84 by iano, posted 08-18-2005 11:31 AM | | iano has not replied |
|
PurpleYouko
Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: 11-11-2004
|
IPU
PurpleYouko writes:
FYI The IPU is the Invisible Pink Unicorn. DominionSeraph writes:
...Blessed Be Her Holy Hooves.
I was going to say.. "And glory to her great spiral horn!" But then I realized that I am in fact an AIPUist too so I won't. 
|
PurpleYouko
Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: 11-11-2004
|
Re: Considering investigating God?
for it is Her decision that purple is usually a color for shitheads, and yea verily so is brown.
Thanks a bundle for pointing that out dude. I am SO glad that I didn't glorify the IPU since she so obviously thinks I am a shithead. From this point on you can all consider me a strong A-IPUist since I now avow that the IPU does not exist (out of spite). And yes, as Tony said, the A in AIPU is just like the A in Atheist.
|
PurpleYouko
Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: 11-11-2004
|
|
|
Message 95 of 329 (234511)
08-18-2005 1:15 PM
|
Reply to: Message 91 by iano
08-18-2005 12:13 PM
|
|
Like, who can believe in something they don't know exists. That would be irrational...
DUH! Isn't that what I have been telling you all along?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 91 by iano, posted 08-18-2005 12:13 PM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 99 by iano, posted 08-18-2005 2:13 PM | | PurpleYouko has replied |
|
PurpleYouko
Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: 11-11-2004
|
|
|
Message 103 of 329 (234553)
08-18-2005 2:39 PM
|
Reply to: Message 99 by iano
08-18-2005 2:13 PM
|
|
If your saying that atheism is irrational because it believes without knowing then
I have not said that weak atheism is irrational because does not mean believing anything and certainly doesn't mean "knowing" something But I have said that Strong Atheism is irrational because a belief that god does not exist is included in it. (I can look up the posts if you like but it will take a while)
If your saying believing in God is irrational then no, you haven't been saying it all along either...
If you really think that then you aren't observant as I thought you were. I have repeatedly stated that the only rational position is weak atheism. (possibly agnosticism too but I didn't actually state that) Again, I can find the posts if you really want me to.
Whilst athiesm maybe irrational (your implication I hasten to add, I'd call it 'religion' - that doesn't sound so bad ) belief in God is not irrational if God has revealed himself to you. You might not have any basis to prove it to others but they can't disprove the proof given that your proof is supernatural so can't be dispproven naturally. That is different to the athiests position - which may be disproven if any proofs are posed for which there is no scientific (natural) evidence.
WTF???   What the heck does this actually mean? You might want to reword some of this because either your brain is fried or mine is. I can't make any sense out of it! I will have a go at breaking it down.
Whilst athiesm maybe irrational
No it isn't!! unless you mean the kind that actively believes that god does not exist
belief in God is not irrational if God has revealed himself to you.
Maybe not to you. How do you know it isn't just self delusion based on your need to fill a percieved void in your percieved soul? Plenty of people claim that God has spoken to them. Most of these people are now in the funny farm wearing nice padded jackets (I'm not suggesting that you are nuts by the way. )
You might not have any basis to prove it to others but they can't disprove the proof given that your proof is supernatural so can't be dispproven naturally.
I'm not even going to attempt this one.
That is different to the athiests position - which may be disproven if any proofs are posed for which there is no scientific (natural) evidence.
Now this is just plain wrong on so many levels. First off, the whole point of the weak atheist's position is that it CAN be overturned by proof. However there CANNOT EVER BE a proof which is not based on scientific (natural) evidence. If it isn't scientific then it isn't (by definition) a proof! Anything else is just heresay or unsupported assertions with no more meaning than me telling you that I have the infamous IPU in my back yard.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 99 by iano, posted 08-18-2005 2:13 PM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 112 by iano, posted 08-18-2005 3:54 PM | | PurpleYouko has replied |
|
PurpleYouko
Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: 11-11-2004
|
Rumbled!
Except you've just demonstrated that you're an IPUist, as you must believe in her to believe she thinks you're a shithead. So, you're just an IPUist who hates the IPU (mhhnbs).
Oh crap! You rumbled me.
|
PurpleYouko
Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: 11-11-2004
|
|
|
Message 106 of 329 (234559)
08-18-2005 2:43 PM
|
Reply to: Message 102 by iano
08-18-2005 2:30 PM
|
|
Re: Considering investigating God?
PurpleYouko...your language. My, My I am shocked...
Well I am a Godless heathen so what did you expect?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 102 by iano, posted 08-18-2005 2:30 PM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 117 by iano, posted 08-19-2005 8:48 AM | | PurpleYouko has replied |
|
PurpleYouko
Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: 11-11-2004
|
|
|
Message 118 of 329 (234761)
08-19-2005 8:58 AM
|
Reply to: Message 112 by iano
08-18-2005 3:54 PM
|
|
Delusion or not delusion? That is the question
2)Delusion:
If God exists and choses to reveal himself, then nothing can stop him doing so. He would too, you may agree, be able to reveal himself in such a way as to ensure the recipient of the revelation would be under no illusion that God it was.
Anyone who is deluded is under no illusion that their own delusion is 100% true and is not in fact delusion at all. That is what it means to be deluded. You can't tell it from reality.
could I suppose take it from the general demeanour of the person whether they thought they suffered from delusion. Like, a person who is suffering from 'divine illusion' is likely going to demonstrate delusional tendencies elsewhere
Sometimes but not always. I have read of and even known a few people whose delusions are totally harmless and have no effect on noticable effect on their demeanour. Take the hypothetical guy down the pub who after a couple of drinks will swear blind that he has fairies at the bottom of his garden. He firmly believes that they look after his prize roses and no argument will ever sway him from that delusional belief. He is harmless and otherwise perfectly normal in every way. IMO most creationists fall into this catagory. A few people may hear "the voice of God" telling them to do things. These are the potential sick and dangerous ones that usually end up dead or in the psyche ward. Cult leaders and such like (not the ones in it for the money or power but the ones who genuinely believe that they are doing God's work.) You can believe that these revelations are genuine all you like but you can't objectively prove they aren't delusions.
4)"If it ain't a scientific proof then it ain't a proof Ever been in love PY? Was it scientifically provable ('in love' can easily be falsified - especially if the recipient is a 85 year old geezer with billions in his account and a ropey ticker). Did you require scientific proof to know you were in love? Thought not
Love is a feeling brought on by a mix of chemicals in the brain. Yes you can prove it by measuring the synaptic responses and sampling brain chemistry. We may not know what causes it in detail (yet) but the physical responses ARE measurable. I don't require proof but if needed it is available.
("I am the Lord your God, thou shalt not put false gods before me" You worshipping at the altar of the god of Science again PY )
Well since breaking up with the IPU after her Holy book intimated that she considered me a shithead, I had to find a new god to fill that aching void in my soul.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 112 by iano, posted 08-18-2005 3:54 PM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 120 by iano, posted 08-19-2005 10:38 AM | | PurpleYouko has replied |
|
PurpleYouko
Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: 11-11-2004
|
|
|
Message 119 of 329 (234764)
08-19-2005 9:19 AM
|
Reply to: Message 117 by iano
08-19-2005 8:48 AM
|
|
Re: Weak athiesm
Hi PY. I said I'd come back on weak athiesm with you. For the purposes of clarity - seeing as so much has been said and there are so many views on weak/strong/taking-the-epis atheism - could you do us both a favor and give a short synopsis of your defintion of weak athiesm, ie: what you hold to be the case. With too, the basis of it's validation/justification as a position. A few lines will do just to serve as reminders of the central points.
Sheesh!! How many more times? OK for the sake of completeness here is my definition of the position that I hold on the issue. The closest catagory among the outwardly imposed labels for my position is that of weak atheist although my own label would be more like Scientific Atheist I still think that the best description of weak atheist is the one that I posted earlier in this thread. I will repeat it for you.
Weak atheism, also known as implicit atheism, is the absence of belief concerning the existence of deities, without the positive assertion that they do not exist. A weak atheist may however claim that given sufficient lack of evidence, nonexistence is most likely. An argument commonly associated with the weak atheism position is that of rationalism: any claims and assertions, and the beliefs arising thereof, must be justified, and not taken on faith. Theists make the positive claim that a particular god and/or deities exist. Weak atheists do not assert the contrary, but merely withhold their assent from the theists' claim. Some weak atheists simply have no opinion on the issue, either because they have not considered it, or because they find the arguments and evidence more or less equally compelling on both sides. Others, having considered the arguments and evidence, may doubt the existence of deities but are unwilling to assert no deities exist. They may feel it is not possible to prove a negative; that the strong atheist has not fulfilled his burden of proof any more than the theist; and that faith is at present required to assert or deny theism, making both theism and strong atheism untenable. The epistemological position that it is not known, and possibly not knowable, whether or not deities exist is known as agnosticism. This view is not equivalent to weak atheism, as agnosticism can also be subscribed to by theists who hold their beliefs on faith. However agnosticism is often the basis for weak atheism, a position sometimes called agnostic atheism. For a discussion of agnosticism and its variants, see: agnosticism, weak agnosticism, strong agnosticism, agnostic atheism.
Here is a link to the site where this information came fromMy own position of scientific atheist is well reflected in the highlighted section of the text. Let's take a look at Agnosticism to compare the two.
The same site writes: Agnosticism is the philosophical and theological view that the existence of God, gods or deities is either unknown or inherently unknowable and that to deny the existence of God is also untenable. The term and the related agnostic were coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1869 and are also used to describe those who are unconvinced or noncommittal about the existence of deities as well and other matters of religions. The word agnostic comes from the Greek a (no) and gnosis (knowledge). Agnosticism is not to be confused with a view specifically opposing the doctrine of gnosis and Gnosticismthese are religious concepts that are not generally related to agnosticism. For some the central claim of agnosticism is that the existence of God is inherently unknowable, while for others it is that the existence of God is either uncertainty or subject to doubt. For this reason, agnosticism is a form of scepticism focusing on religious statements, and so faces some of the same philosophical issues. For example if an agnostic claims that absolute truth is not possible and does not restrict the scope of that claim, they are in danger of contradicting themselves. For then this individual would be obliged to hold that the statement there are no absolute truths is itself an absolute truth. An agnostic would be on firmer ground if they claimed that religious statements or statements about the numinous world are not or cannot be satisfactorily justified. In this case, it would be reasonable to reserve judgment. For instance, an agnostic might demand that religious statements be justified in the same way as scientific statements, perhaps in terms of the scientific method. Since this is adopting an attitude towards the quality of proof required to accept such statements, agnosticism becomes a matter of inclination rather than of logical proof. That is, one need only be willing to accept a different justification of religious statements in order to avoid agnosticism. Perhaps this explains why agnostics do not generally engage in proselytization.
Doesn't really seem to be much difference IMO, despite the sites own claim that the two are not the same. Ah well! You live and learn
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 117 by iano, posted 08-19-2005 8:48 AM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 122 by iano, posted 08-19-2005 10:55 AM | | PurpleYouko has replied |
|
PurpleYouko
Member Posts: 714 From: Columbia Missouri Joined: 11-11-2004
|
|
|
Message 124 of 329 (234794)
08-19-2005 11:01 AM
|
Reply to: Message 120 by iano
08-19-2005 10:38 AM
|
|
Re: Delusion or not delusion? That is the question
Do you smell something decidedly circular here PY?
IM(possibly deluded)O, anybody can be deluded about anything at just about any time and there is absolutely no objective way to prove they are or aren't. As far as the scientific method goes, it is there in order to make the best possible attempt to weed out those delusions. I think it works pretty well and has a very good track record. It isn't infallable though and there is always room for improvement. We all know that we aren't perfect after all and that is probably a good sign that we are doing something right.
quote:
Anyone who is sane enough to recognizes their own insanity probably isn't genuinely insane in the first place.
However anyone who denies their own insanity is suspect.
Quote utterly fabricated by PY just for the heck of it In worshipping this god of Science, just be careful that it doesn't require to much by way of sacrifice - ie: it would be an idea to pray to it and ask it to permit the possiblity of "..putting a real God before it". If it doesn't then turn that tool called female intuition (wonder is THAT measurable) onto full alert...
I have gone one further than that. I worship the all power God of Mass Spectrometry. Without ritualist sacrifices of chickens (and the odd undergrad when we can get away with it), the great and mysterious Mass Spectrometer that resides in the hallowed halls of my clean room just refuses to work properly. I must constantly tend to it in order to appease my chosen deity.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 120 by iano, posted 08-19-2005 10:38 AM | | iano has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 125 by iano, posted 08-19-2005 11:19 AM | | PurpleYouko has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2
