Religion and "Respect": What the religious can/can't expect from atheists

[BurtWorm]

From a paper on the subject by Simon Blackburn, quoted on pharyngula.org

http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/religion_real_and_unreal/

'Respect', of course is a tricky term. I may respect your gardening by just letting you get on with it. Or, I may respect it by admiring it and regarding it as a superior way to garden. The word seems to span a spectrum from simply not interfering, passing by on the other side, through admiration, right up to reverence and deference. This makes it uniquely well-placed for ideological purposes. People may start out by insisting on respect in the minimal sense, and in a generally liberal world they may not find it too difficult to obtain it. But then what we might call respect creep sets in, where the request for minimal toleration turns into a demand for more substantial respect, such as fellow-feeling, or esteem, and finally deference and reverence. In the limit, unless you let me take over your mind and your life, you are not showing proper respect for my religious or ideological convictions.

We can respect, in the minimal sense of tolerating, those who hold false beliefs. We can pass by on the other side. We need not be concerned to change them, and in a liberal society we do not seek to suppress them or silence them. But once we are convinced that a belief is false, or even just that it is irrational, we cannot respect in any thicker sense those who hold it—not on account of their holding it. We may respect them for all sorts of other qualities, but not that one. We would prefer them to change their minds. Or, if it is to our advantage that they have false beliefs, as in a game of poker, andwe am poised to profit from them, we may be wickedly pleased that they are taken in. But that is not a symptom of special substantial respect, but quite the reverse. It is one up to us, and one down to them.

[trotsky]

1. Nice writeup.

And great original paper. Thanks for the link!

[Deep13]

2. I respect people's right to be religious, ...

... but I would be lying if I said I respected their beliefs. Maybe that is not PC, but it is the truth. People have a right to believe what they want, and I do not hold it against anyone for believing in religion. Nevertheless, as an atheist I think all religions are false and intrinsicly harmful. I like, respect and even admire many smokers, but it does not change the fact that smoking is a bad thing. As a practical matter, I keep my views to myself unless pressed by overzealous Christians (sorry, but no one else has ever tried to push a religious agenda on me) or unless asked about it.

[beam me up scottie]

11. That's where I draw the line as well.

Why should we have to respect anyone's religious beliefs?

Why should their faith automatically qualify for special consideration?

Respecting the believer is not the same as respecting their belief.

Some are unable to separate themselves from their faith and don't understand that criticizing their religion is not an attack on them.

[beam me up scottie]

3. Heh heh...

I love PZ:

As the Blackburn paper illustrates in its opening anecdote, though, showing a lack of respect for religion in the sense above is one of those things that drives the acutely religious nuts. It is not enough to let them be, you must also acknowledge the vast and weighty import of their history, their rituals, their majestic all-powerful Tooth Fairy. And since their god is infinitely malleable, they can attach him to anything to add his incalculable mass to whatever end they want. Little kids get told to say their prayers before bedtime—a meaningless ritual backed by the Lord of the Entire Universe. People are killed en masse in wars because they address same Lord by a different name or title than other people.

***

We just go along with it all, accepting religious mythology as an implicit part of our culture, and now we're at the point where Wolf Blitzer can ask in all seriousness "if the recent natural disasters…were indication of END OF DAYS" on a major news network, and damn few question the insanity of the question. We can have a president nominate someone to the Supreme Court, and the apologists point to the fervency of her belief in Jesus as one of her qualifications.

***

Why is uncritical devotion to the unseen and unevidenced considered a benefit for a secular position that requires scholarly analysis of evidence and history? (OK, I know the newest qualifications are for a fanatical adherence to an ideology in spite of the evidence, and in that case religiosity may indicate a predisposition to that…but I'm an idealist and would like to imagine that many people oppose such corruption of the court.)

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. Interesting

the last line of the quoted part of the article. It appears to imply that the point of arguing religion/non religion is basically one upmanship-my belief system is better than yours.

Personally, I feel that if a person's belief system lets them feel at peace with themselves and encourages them to be helpful to others, that's all that matters, not where they obtained their belief system.

[flamin lib]

9. The only thing I can possibly know is

That I can't possibly know. Any belief, as long as it harms not the believer or those around him, is fine with me. However, if your belief allows you to lob missiles into your neighbor's country or to hate someone because they are different from you it is time to re-evaluate your cosmic construct . . .

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

13. absolutely!

Its those types I have a problem with....

[bryant69]

5. That is interesting

It goes to the heart of the conflict between religion and atheists.

Because (as a believer) I believe in a fundemental way you Atheists are wrong. As you believe (or know if you prefer), that, in a fundemental way, that I am wrong.

I think more of the problems come in when we ascribe reasons for why we have arrived at our different positions.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[papau]

311. Well said :-)

:-)

[Skinner]

6. Couldn't this just as easily been said by a believer?

We can respect, in the minimal sense of tolerating, those who hold false beliefs. We can pass by on the other side. We need not be concerned to change them, and in a liberal society we do not seek to suppress them or silence them. But once we are convinced that a belief is false, or even just that it is irrational, we cannot respect in any thicker sense those who hold it—not on account of their holding it. We may respect them for all sorts of other qualities, but not that one. We would prefer them to change their minds. Or, if it is to our advantage that they have false beliefs, as in a game of poker, andwe am poised to profit from them, we may be wickedly pleased that they are taken in. But that is not a symptom of special substantial respect, but quite the reverse. It is one up to us, and one down to them.

I guess I'm just not comfortable with the idea that a sincere belief that the other side is wrong is a license to disrespect them or their beliefs. Couldn't a believer make the same argument? Many of them "know" that non-believers are wrong. Are they justified in disrespecting non-believers?

(And it's not an answer to say, "But we're *actually* right an they're not." That is what many believers would say as well.)

[BurtWorm]

7. Except a believer would be straining a bit to accuse an atheist

of having irrational beliefs.

PS: To me, that's the heart of the fundamental disagreement.

[Skinner]

8. Says you.

I am not sure that all believers would consider their beliefs irrational, nor would all believers consider atheism rational.

[BurtWorm]

10. What would their definition of "rational" be, then?

Isn't "rational" a position arrived at through reason? At some point, a believer has to abandon reason and put all stock in faith. That may not be "wrong," but it's clearly irrational. Whereas atheists tend to be atheists because they don't feel comfortable making that leap.

[Skinner]

14. I cannot speak for them.

But I think it is doubtful that all believers would recognize their faith as irrational.

One possible "rational" explanation (and I put rational in quotes for a reason), right off the top of my head: Everybody around me believes this, so there must be something to it.

Or then there's Pascall's Wager:

If you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end), whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain everything (eternal bliss). But if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing (death ends all), whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything (eternal damnation).

If the choice is viewed this way, then it could be argued that the "rational" choice is to believe.

I am not arguing that faith is rational. I am arguing that many believers would not recognize their faith as irrational. And by setting up a test by which desrespect is permissable, it creates a situation where the other side is "free" to make a similar argument. When a non-believer says that disrespect is permissable, then wouldn't it (in effect) give permission to the other side to disrespect as well?

[trotsky]

116. I would say that neither of those examples is rational, of course.

But not just because they can be criticized from an external standpoint.

For the first, all that needs to be pointed out is that many times, lots of people have believed something that turned out to be false. Shape of the world, etc.

And the second, well, there are tons of logical flaws with Pascal's Wager but the most glaring of all is, what about the consequences of believing in the WRONG god? The wager is portrayed as an either/or situation when real life is nothing like that. Not only can you "choose" to believe in god or not, but once you choose to believe, which god do you choose? The problem being, of course, that some gods are very jealous gods and will punish you for believing incorrectly.

Stepping back for a minute, I think your use of the words "respect" / "disrespect" begin to echo what the original work was talking about. "Respecting" someone's beliefs doesn't mean I have to hold those beliefs in high regard. But it doesn't mean that in the process I am actively disrespecting the believer, either.

[Taxloss]

247. Pascal's gambit is only rational in terms of game theory, where the aim is

"winning" - IE going to heaven. In fact, in terms of pure reason, it is longer odds to bet on an afterlife. Partly because the Commandments say "Thou shalt not lie", and the Bible is full of warnings against making false declarations of belief. So you can't just fake it to get into the angelic country club. But also because atheists seek the good, just and moral life as well - it's a human urge - and if Pascal's God rejected people from the country club solely on grounds on their beliefs, regardless of their conduct on Earth ... then Pascal's God is hardly rational. If it is, it's a cruel creature.

[papau]

312. Pascal mocked faith - he was not trying to justify belief

:-)

[EST]

248. It appears to me that you are arguing belief as a profit and

loss bargaining.

[papau]

16. Agnostics do not take the leap of faith - instead say they do not know

atheists seem to have a lot of faith, as you can not do physical experiments that prove there is no God -

and thought experiments would appear to lead most to the conclusion that there is a God, albeit an idea that one must take on faith...

:toast:

:-)

"irrational" thought experiment conclusions I believe are those defined as not agreeing with your thought experiment conclusion...

:toast:

:-)

[beam me up scottie]

18. Why do you insist on incorrectly defining atheism?

We've been over this several dozen times.

Do you have problems comprehending religious terms in general, or just the atheistic ones?

[papau]

25. Using English and logic should not be so difficult for you - but if you

insist on trying to redefine your way out of saying that you are faith based, I will be here to point out the lack of logic.

Why is saying you are Agnostic so hard for you (if you do not rely on faith)? It really is a good English word.

Or do you own something that might be called "the new logic" that uses English differently that it has been used in the past (I know - definitions forced on the atheist by the theist - sigh - Agnostic equals Atheist - but not quite in the world of the new logic as you then will define a new "difference" and say we all must use your definitions and logic) ?

:toast:

:-)

[Az]

30. It offers no information

Agnostic is a term that informs us what a person knows. The question at hand is not about knowledge. It is about what a person believes. There are ample philosophical arguments out there demonstrating that we do not truly know anything. Thus arguing about what we know is disengenuous.

Atheism vs Theism relate to what you happen to believe. What you think may be. If you believe there is a god, if even in the slightest then you are a theist. If you do not happen to believe in any gods then you are an atheist. These labels convey information unlike agnosticism.

[papau]

38. true - but then we get to "evidence and faith" and we round the

track again!

sufficient evidence that there is no God is faith to some and obvious to others - and vice versa

:-)

[beam me up scottie]

41. " "sufficient evidence that there is no God" ???

Which atheist claims to have proof of a negative?

[Az]

42. A semantic problem

I doubt we will ever have a situation where we can say there is sufficient evidence that there is no god. Again the problem comes from the multiplicity of claims for god. It may be possible to say there is sufficient evidence to refute specific claims for god. But the open ended implied all gods is not within the purvue of the evidentiary process. It can only deal with the gods it is presented with on a case by case basis.

Thus we are left with god being the positive claim is responsible for providing evidence to support its claims. And in the cases where this has been attempted the evidence to date has not risen to the level necissary to command acceptance from those that do not yet believe.

[papau]

46. True - and yet the "evidence" is there for those who do believe

I liked your "god being the positive claim is responsible for providing evidence to support its claims" - NOPE - we get back to faith

and we get back that those that claim the negative in this metaphysical debate have no greater claim to not need proof than those who take the positive.

Faith - a wonderful word.

[Az]

48. It certainly does create a situation

But it is tacitly meaningless to this conversation. If you wish to present a case for god (and that is definately "IF") you are going to have to step away from the faith based argument. At its base it is little more than an appeal to emotionalism and authority. Not favorites for those that look for reason and evidence.

Your wonderful word is faith. Our wonderful word is evidence.

[papau]

57. true - faith vs evidence - and what defines "evidence" - logic ?- but

faith is not logic based.

But saying you can not be wrong is faith based.

[txaslftist]

65. Reason and Evidence:

Evidence: ...Testimony, writings, or material objects offered in proof of an alleged fact or proposition...

"There are, generally speaking, two types of evidence from which a jury may properly find the truth as to the facts of a case. One is directe evidence - such as the testimony of an eyewitness. The other is indirect or circumstantial evidence..." -Black's Law Dictionary.

According to your "wonderful word", there is more evidence of God's existence, including the testimony of literally thousands of people cited in the Bible, the Khoran, the accounts of the prophets, mystics and others down through the ages, than there is evidence of God's non-existence.

That is assuming that eyewitness testimony is admissible in your court. And if it isn't, then shouldn't you qualify your definition of evidence by limiting it to "circumstantial" or "scientific" evidence?

[Az]

75. Sufficient implies both qantity and quality

You can have all the evidence in the world but if it's quality does not meet the level required then it is insufficient. And even in the courts of this land it is understood that eyewitness testimony can be flawed.

[papau]

85. Subjective is a word that comes to mind.

:-)

[txaslftist]

91. When you said there was "no evidence" you meant "insufficient evidence"

By your subjective standard.

Clear now.

[Az]

137. It can be both

It depends on the individual.

What I mean by this is what a person believes necissarily comes from their subjective positions. But their arguments can also be based on objective standards. Whether their logic and reasoning are sufficient is of course the point of contention in debates and discussions.

[txaslftist]

154. I guess I don't understand.

Either words mean what they mean or they don't.
Dictionaries serve a function, in that they define what words mean in common parlance. If the response to a dictionary definition is "that's not really what that word means" then how can common people speaking in common parlance have a dialogue?

I am infinitely familiar with what the word "evidence" means. I am a criminal trial attorney. Eyewitness testimony is evidence. Eyewitnesses claimed to have seen, firsthand, miracles. Accordingly, there is evidence of miracles.

If you choose not to believe the evidence, that is your perogative. But that is a case of insufficient evidence, not one of no evidence. It is not a meaningless distinction.

"There is no evidence of the existence of God." is a declarative statement of fact, and is plainly refutable. "There is insufficient evidence to convince me of the existence of God." is a statement of opinion, and is not refutable, except as it please you.

That's a huge difference.

[papau]

307. Well said :-)

:toast:

:-)

[trotsky]

420. You're left to arguing semantics.

Basically, all you have left to say is that one person's idea of "evidence" is different than another's.

If a lunatic raving on a street corner swears to you that he's seen leprechauns, can you use that "fact" to refute the statement "There is no evidence of the existence of leprechauns."?

[papau]

83. Define away

:-)

[Az]

49. Addendum to the above

Its interesting to note that there would be no clash between theist and atheist were it not volunteered by propogation of faith.

Suffice to say that while encased in the faith defense there is no way for the atheist to assail the faithful. They simply turn a deaf ear to all arugments from within. It is only when they attempt to engage an atheists argument that a conflict arises.

Being faithful does not make one correct. It is much like standing on a large plane and proclaiming that you are in the exact center without being able to look down. The fact that you have faith that you are in the center has no impact as to whether you are or not.

[papau]

59. ???? - who is attempting to engage the atheists in arguement ?- I

just like to post!

My only point is the same as yours - that there can be no arguement because we are talking past each other, and that there is no evidence required by faith.

But to be certain you are not wrong requires faith.

[beam me up scottie]

39. Agnosticism is the invention of theists such as yourself, who cannot

successfully argue with an atheist.

Redefining your opponent is dishonest and is also evidence that you are unable to refute their logic.

Unless you can explain what makes requiring proof of a deity faith based, of course.

[papau]

60. Logic that can not be refuted - well that is that I guess ..... :-)

:-)

[kwassa]

132. Who's redefining? Do you need to see the definition of "atheist" again?

You, and some others here, seem upset that we accept the definiton of atheist written in the dictionary, not the new one made up by people who call themselves "atheists" here, who fall into the category of agnostics, of course, also as currently defined.

You would do far better to create an entirely new term rather than try to alter a term that already has a widely accepted definition and usage by the world at large.

[beam me up scottie]

139. You are incapable of defining me and my atheism.

But the arrogance apparent in presuming that you can is duly noted.

[kwassa]

152. I'm not trying to define you; you are attempting to re-define atheism

to be something it is not, according to general usage.

Why choose atheism as the word to represent your "lack of belief" belief, when the word is already in use to describe something else? Why not create a new word to describe the position that you and others that share your belief have?

This is one part of the part of this argument I really don't get, is the need to use a word that the world uses to mean something else. Has the English language run out of the capacity to develop new words?

[beam me up scottie]

156. Why should I use the christian's original definition of atheism?

I dunno.

Ask a wiccan if they are comfortable using the christians' original definition of them.

Ask a muslim.

Or a pagan.

Hey, I know!

Ask a native american if they prefer to use the definition given to them by their murderers.


Get back to me when you figure it out.

[kwassa]

167. Can you answer my question?

Why not find another word for your position?

and to follow that one up:

Wis it so important to give yourself a new definition on an old word, thereby condemning yourself to be perpetually misunderstood?

What is so important about claiming the word "atheism" for yourself?

[BurtWorm]

168. What's wrong with the word "atheism?"

If you define it descriptively, I have no problem with calling myself that. I don't believe in God. Isn't that an atheist position?

[beam me up scottie]

169. Geez.

There is no NEW definition of atheism.

You are using the christian definition, not the correct one.

I think I'll start using a certain atheist's definition of religion.

So, how's that virus coming along?

Cured yet?

[kwassa]

268. And how do you know it is the Christain version, not the correct one?

Enlighten me.

Why is the dictionary definition Christian, and incorrect?

[beam me up scottie]

410. My posts stated that you are using the christian definition of the word

and that the dictionary definition is wrong.

Please have the courtesy to honestly represent my statements when you respond to me.

Here is a little light reading for the uneducated.

If you continue to stereotype atheists according to your opinion of them after being advised repeatedly that this behavior is intolerant, this will be the last time I address you with the respect that you refuse to afford atheists.

From Austin Cline
Guide to Atheism

How Modern Dictionaries Define Atheism & Atheists

A common theme throughout the definitions on this page is the primary use of "disbelieve" when defining atheism. Some modern dictionaries drop this, but most comprehensive dictionaries do not. For some reason, however, people simply ignore this word and move right along to the secondary sense of "denial." When we take a closer look at the word "disbelieve," however, we find two senses: an active and a passive.

In the passive sense, "disbelieve" simply means "not believe" — thus a person who disbelieves a claim may simply not accept the truth of the claim without going any further, like asserting the opposite. This is the broadest sense of atheism, lacking belief in any gods. In the active sense, "disbelieve" involves deliberately refusing to believe something (possible reasons might include a lack of evidence or an incoherent claim).

Once again, however, this is not the same as asserting that the claim is false and represents a slightly narrower version of weak atheism.

In the active sense, "disbelieve" involves deliberately refusing to believe something (possible reasons might include a lack of evidence or an incoherent claim). Thus, the definition of atheism, dating back at least to 1903 and probably much earlier, encompasses both the "weak" and the "strong" senses of atheism used by atheists today.

*****

Atheists define atheism differently:

Many people who adopt the label of agnostic reject the label of atheist — there is a common perception that agnosticism is a more 'reasonable" position while atheism is more "dogmatic," ultimately indistinguishable from theism except in the details. Is this a valid position to take?

Unfortunately, no — agnostics may sincerely believe it and theists may sincerely reinforce it, but it relies upon more than one misunderstanding about both atheism and agnosticism. These misunderstandings are only exacerbated by continual social pressure and prejudice against atheism and atheists. People who are unafraid of stating that they indeed do not believe in any gods are still despised in many places, whereas "agnostic" is perceived as more respectable.

Atheists are thought to be closed-minded because they deny the existence of gods, whereas agnostics appear to be open-minded because they do not know for sure.

This is a mistake because atheists do not necessarily deny any gods and may indeed be an atheist because they do not know for sure — in other words, they may be an agnostic as well.

Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a "third way" between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge — it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not.

Thus, it is clear that agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism.

It is also worth noting that there is a vicious double standard involved when theists claim that agnosticism is 'better" than atheism because it is less dogmatic. If atheists are closed-minded because they are not agnostic, then so are theists. On the other hand, if theism can be open-minded then so can atheism.

In the end, the fact of the matter is a person isn't faced with the necessity of only being either an atheist or an agnostic. Quite the contrary, not only can a person be both, but it is in fact common for people to be both agnostics and atheists. An agnostic atheist won’t claim to know for sure that nothing warranting the label "god" exists or that such cannot exist, but they also don’t actively believe that such an entity does indeed exist.

*****

Theism, broadly defined, is simply the belief in the existence of at least one god. Contrasted with this is atheism: broadly defined, it is the absence of belief in the existence of any gods. There is, unfortunately, some disagreement about this definition of atheism. It is interesting to note that most of that disagreement comes from theists — atheists themselves tend to agree on what atheism means.

Christians in particular dispute the definition used by atheists and insist that atheism means something very different. According to them, atheism is the denial of the existence of any gods; the absence of belief in any gods is, for some strange reason, often ignored — at best it might be mistakenly referred to as agnosticism, which is actually the position that knowledge of gods is not possible.

From Atheists United:

What is an Atheist?
by Dr. Gordon Stein

Origin of Atheism The word "atheist" conjures up a multitude of images in the minds of Americans, from courageous to horrible. In fact, the term is one of the most misunderstood in the English language. The derivation of the word reveals exactly what it mean to atheists themselves, and atheists should best know what the word means.

The word derives from the Greek "theism", which is a belief in a god or gods, and "a", which means "without". Thus, atheists are people who are without a belief in a god or gods. Contrary to common belief and some older dictionaries, the vast majority of atheists do NOT absolutely deny the extremely small possibility of God. In order to deny God categorically, an atheist would have to know all possible definitions of God, examine them all, and find them all logically self-contradictory or false, and therefore reject them all. To do this would require the atheist to be omniscient. In addition, atheists refuse to make the "leap of faith" past the evidence to a conclusion not merited by it. Atheists leave that logical mistake to theists. Since atheists can not logically deny god, they do not. Anyone who says they make such a simplistically all-encompassing statement is simply unfamiliar with the literature of atheism.

Square Circles

Where did this confusion come from? First, until recently the only people who spoke publicly about atheism were clergymen. Beyond that unfortunate fact, there is the idea that one can deny the existence of a specifically defined god if the definition of that god leads to a logical self-contradiction. Of course, all that particular self-contradiction means is that a specific god cannot exist, any more than a square circle can exist, because logically self-contradictory things by definition cannot exist.

OK, so atheists are people without a belief in a god or gods. What does that mean? Well, it means that atheists have adopted this position because they realize that the burden of proof about whether something is true logically always rests upon the shoulders of the person who says that it is true. So, the theist claiming that God exists is obligated to prove that position. This is done by offering physical or logical "proofs" and trying to reach a logically compelling conclusion. When the atheist asks the theist to present his or her evidence, the evidence is insufficient to logically conclude that there is a god, no matter how "god" is defined. Almost every philosopher admits this reality.

Faith vs. Experience

The theist, however, has an "out". The theist says that even though there are no logical (rational) proofs for the existence of a god, nevertheless one should still accept the idea of a god on faith. Faith is basically believing something without adequate evidence because you want to believe it! Atheists refuse to make this "leap of faith" or to believe anything because of faith, realizing that this is simply lying to oneself. Atheists and most other people view a lie as immoral. In addition, religion is the only area relying upon a
concept of faith. It is true that we often sloppily use the word "faith" when what we really mean is "confidence based upon experience". For example, when we come to a red stop light, we stop and wait for it to turn green. We don't have faith that it will turn green but instead we have confidence based upon past experience with red lights. We know that over 999 times out of 100, a red light will eventually turn green. If we have never seen a red light before, we wouldn't know what to do when we first came upon one. If we stopped and waited for it to turn green without ever having seen a red light before, then we would be acting on faith.

Faith also suffers from many more problems. Knowledge is gained through reason and never through faith. Knowledge requires facts, independent verification of the facts, and ultimate widespread acceptance of them. Faith does not provide a method to obtain facts or verify them. Instead, faith is pure wish fantasy; we wish something were so, even though we can't rationally prove its truth, so we believe it anyway.

Evidence Lacking

The atheist, of course, remains open to any additional proofs or evidence which theists may offer. If any of the arguments are convincing, the atheist will accept them. Meanwhile, the atheist lives his or her life without a god, or as if there were no God. Although the atheist does not dogmatically say that no God is possible, the atheist thinks that it is highly improbable that there is one. After all, religious people have been offering supposed "proofs" for the existence of God for over a thousand years, and all such proofs have failed logical analysis. Its pretty unlikely (although certainly remotely possible) that anyone will come up with valid proofs in the future.

[trotsky]

235. Can you answer a question for me?

What's your infatuation with atheism? You love to say that atheists have an active belief because we expend effort trying to protect our right to not believe against the majority Christians.

So why your unhealthy obsession with continuing to stalk us on these threads, insisting that the definition written by Christians hundreds of years ago is accurate today and that we as atheists aren't allowed to define ourselves?

Is this your "religion"? Confronting atheists about what the word atheism really means? You certainly expend a lot of effort on it, what does that say about you?

And do you stalk other people who use words differently today than they were used 200 years ago?

[papau]

310. A stalker now? - LOL

:-)

[kwassa]

322. Me? Stalk? oh please.

trotsky:
"So why your unhealthy obsession with continuing to stalk us"

No judgement in this sentence, is there?

"Is this your "religion"? Confronting atheists about what the word atheism really means? You certainly expend a lot of effort on it, what does that say about you?"

Two things.
1) I spend almost no effort, because confronting the atheist contradiction is very easy to do. I spend very little time on DU in general, because I don't have the time to do so, and what time I do spend these days is usually over in the Lounge.

2) It shows that I like to argue, which is a great form of entertainment.

"And do you stalk other people who use words differently today than they were used 200 years ago?"

When I start stalking anybody, I let you know. Promise. Meanwhile, if you can stick to the argument at hand, and not attempt to make personal attacks on me, I would truly appreciate it. Such attacks make me think your argument must be quite weak if you need to resort to such tactics.

As it is, neither you nor "beam me" has explained to me why this particular word is so important to be used the way that you use it.

[trotsky]

346. How very interesting!

1) I spend almost no effort talking about the negative aspects of religion and its infringing on my rights.

2) I like to argue and enjoy it as entertainment, too!

So that kind of blows out of the water your position that atheism MUST be a "belief" because we spend so much energy talking about it.

Thank you for helping to negate one of your primary points.

[trotsky]

20. You continue to show disrespect towards atheists

by insisting on using your narrow personal definition of atheism rather than what many atheists on DU have asked you to consider.

Such behavior is atrocious, especially on a liberal message board. You wouldn't do this sort of thing for any other racial or religious group, I suspect. What makes it OK to stereotype and badmouth atheists?

[papau]

28. atrocious behavior describes the attitude and disrespect shown

non-atheists by atheists on this board.

But whatever - it's lunch time and this goes no where when the other side - you - refuse to use "standard" logic and English.

[Skinner]

32. I'm gonna nip this sub-thread in the bud right now.

Let's not get side-tracked into the old "who disrespects the other side more" argument. Thanks.

[trotsky]

43. Self-delete.

Respecting Skinner's wishes.

[Az]

24. There are gods I believe do not exist

and there are gods I do not believe in. The multiplicity of arguments for god requires that atheists remain flexible in their approach to the question.

I do not have faith there is no god. I have quite strong beliefs that there are no gods that make rocks float in mid air all the time. I find sufficient evidence to refute the claims of other gods existances. I find insufficient evidence to accept the claim of still other gods. And finally of the gods I have not yet heard of I simply do not believe in them and will consider them further once I hear some claims for them.

So proclaiming that I, a person that does not believe in any gods, am proclaiming there are no gods is not exactly true. I am an agnostic in that I admit that I do not know the totality of existance. But thats not very infomative as I would suggest that everyone is an agnostic in that sense. I do know some gods do not exist but thats not really what the question at hand is. The simplest thing that can be said of me is that I do not happen to believe in any god or gods. That is I am without a belief in god or gods. I am an atheist.

[papau]

33. At least you express it well, AZ - but wrongly IMHO

iT IS LEFT TO THE STUDENT TO FIND THE LACK OF LOGIC IN THE FOLLOWING:

"I do not have faith there is no god. I have quite strong beliefs that there are no gods that make rocks float in mid air all the time. I find sufficient evidence to refute the claims of other gods existances. I find insufficient evidence to accept the claim of still other gods. And finally of the gods I have not yet heard of I simply do not believe in them and will consider them further once I hear some claims for them."

HINT: sufficient evidence

[Az]

36. The conversation is sufficiently charged

Many will take the hint comment as disengenous. Perhaps if we speak plainly tensions could be eased.

[JNelson6563]

12. "Belief" requires magical or emotion based thinking

Not so with non-belief.

Julie

[txaslftist]

52. You are partially right.

Non-belief certainly requires no magical or emotion based thinking because non-belief by definition does not require thinking at all. I am not saying that some non-believers don't spend many hours and days in thought and debate to come to their non-belief, but it is just as easy to say, "I don't believe" based on no thought whatsoever. Just like a jury must say, "not guilt" when no evidence is presented or argued before it.

But I take issue with the notion that belief requires "magical" or "emotion based" thinking. In virtually every religious text there are accounts of miracles. Non-belief requires one to assume that those who recount the miracles are liars, despite the fact that there is no contemporaneous account denying their occurrence.

In civil court, if you have evidence of a thing and no evidence running contrary to it, you are required and the court may direct you to enter a verdict in favor of that thing, despite your "personal" beliefs. Our court system is based on rationalism. Does it make mistakes? Certainly.

Accordingly, a "rational" position to take is that miracles have, in fact occurred. The contrarian position is that mankind suffers from some mass hysteria, mass psychosis or mass credulity problem. Unfortunately, this problem has not been documented in present times, so we must assume that men were different (crazy) in the 'old days'.

Twelve men witnessed miracles performed by Christ and four of them wrote about it. There are no contemporaneous accounts saying that they were lying or that Christ was a great charlatan. There were many witnesses to the miracles of Mohammad, also. There have been accounts of miracles in the present day. The persons performing these miracles have alleged that they were the work of divine powers. It is, accordingly, a rational position to take that miracles have occurred, and were the result of divinity. It then becomes rational to accept the divine.

[beam me up scottie]

56. Atheism does not require

"one to assume that those who recount the miracles are liars"

Atheists are asking for evidence.

There is none.

It's not personal, please understand that.

[txaslftist]

151. Atheism DOES require it.

Believe me, I'm not going to take it personally if you call the apostles a bunch of liars. The problem is, they said they witnessed the death and resurrection of a man. They also said they watched a man calm a storm and walk on water. They also said they saw him heal the lame and sick.

Either they were telling the truth, and there was divinity at work, in which case the case for atheism as a positive non-belief in God is essentially defeated; or, they were a bunch of liars.

A definition of atheism that says, "I haven't seen enough evidence to convince me that there is a God" is inherently both personal and subjective, and in my view constitutes sitting on a fence. Such a person could be equally critical of both positive atheists (those who deny god's existence) and believers of whatever stripe. The positive atheists are too rigid in their nonbelief, essentially too skeptical, while the believers are simple dupes.

I think you ought to get off the fence, or you might get stuck with the dictionary label of "agnostic": "One who believes that there is no proof of the existence of God, but does not deny the possibility that God exists."-American Heritage College Dictionary.

On the other hand, if that is what you believe, why not just call yourself an agnostic?

[beam me up scottie]

155. I do not call myself an agnostic because I am not an agnostic.

The term agnosticism was created to be used as a socially acceptable substitution for atheism by those that were afraid of persecution.

Christians still love to use it though, because it allows them to redefine atheists in order to beg the question.

Did you miss the definition of atheism I posted?

[txaslftist]

171. Your definition:

atheism: broadly defined, it is the absence of belief in the existence of any gods.

The dictionary:
atheism (as posted above)\

Agnostic: One who believes that there is no proof of the existence of God, but does not deny the possibility that God exists.

I think the dictionary's definition of agnosticism comes closer to your definition of atheism than the dictionary's definition of atheism does. Do you see why that creates a problem for people like me who were, up until today, unfamiliar with your definition? If I don't know what a word means, I look it up in the dictionary. If I'm still not sure, I look in several dictionaries.

When you call yourself an atheist (and in retrospect you never actually did...) I have to understand what the word means before I can discuss whether its a good idea or not. By your definition, I was an atheist before I came to have faith. I thought I was an agnostic.

Assuming you did not have a special definition apart from the dictionary one, how would you respond to this question: Do you deny the possibility that God exists?

[Az]

178. But it is still incomplete

It does not state whether the individual believes there is or is not a god. It only speaks to knowledge. Direct knowledge. And taking to its logical conclusion it must be seen that no one has absolute knowledge of this matter one way or the other. Thus the word is insufficient in communicating anything relevant.

Where as if we return atheism to its original meaning (based on normenclature) and the definition we are claiming we find the matter is resolved.

Theist: Meaning one who believes in god or gods. Note it does not state the person has knowledge of god. Merely believes

Atheist: From the word Theist and the prefix 'a' meaning without. Simply put a person that is without a belief in god or gods. Again there is no presumption of knowledge. Merely a statement of whether they believe in god or not.

Gnostic: From the word gnosis. Adopted by a sect of Christianity but originally meaning to know. In the absolute sense. To have direct knowledge of a thing.

Agnostic: From the word Gnostic with the prefix 'a'. Meaning one who is without direct knowledge of a thing.

From this we can accurately describe the variety of positions that are actually possible.

Gnostic Theist: Someone that has direct knowledge of god and believes in god.

Agnostic Theist: Someone that does not have direct knowledge of god but believes there is a god.

Gnostic Atheist: Someone that has direct knowledge of the lack of god and does not believe in god.

Agnostic Atheist: Someone that does not have direct knowledge of the abdsense of god and does not believe in god.

I am sorry you are trying to make the old definition fit. But it simply does not fit the reality of the situation. We can continue arguing the semantic of the matter or we can move on. The choice is yours.

[beam me up scottie]

182. Okay.

I get what you're saying.
I'm glad we're getting somewhere.

I do not deny the possibility of the existence of deities.

Calling me an agnostic against my wishes may not seem like a big deal, but it is.

I dislike the word "agnostic" because to me, it is the pc version of atheist, adapted by leery free thinkers because of the stigma attached to atheism by believers.

Another example; I am a feminist and I abhor what the radical reichwing has done to that name, but I refuse to stop using it in order to substitute a less controversial one.

They did the same thing with the word "liberal", remember?

I understand why this is confusing for believers, trust me.

Until I was forced out of the atheists' closet, I never had to deal with these issues either.

I appreciate the fact that you want to know why this is important to us.

I'm the same way, I want to know when and why something I say is offensive to someone.

[BurtWorm]

86. Have you witnessed a miracle of the sort described in the Bible

in your lifetime? If so, it might be rational to think they've happened in other times. If not, is it rational to believe they happened 2,000 years ago but not since?

[txaslftist]

109. I didn't witness the Crimean War or the Crusades, either.

But I don't doubt that SOMETHING happened. The drowning of Pompeii was considered a myth until the city was discovered, as was the existence of Troy.

If my personal observation is required before I believe something and I am to take "seeing is believing" literally, I can't actually believe in the occurrence of anything that existed before the dawn of photography, can I?

[BurtWorm]

114. Believing in a city and believing in a miracle are not the same.

Belief in a miracle requires belief in a breach of physical laws. Belief in cities don't require that (unless the city is Atlantis, for which there is only one reference to go by).

[txaslftist]

123. Belief in a miracle requires belief in testimony of eyewitnesses.

As does belief in Atlantis. As did belief in Troy prior to its rediscovery.

There have been many breaches of physical laws. Orbital dynamics comes to mind; not the refutation of geocentral astronomy, but the impact of relativity on Newtonian physics to explain the eccentricities in the orbits of Mercury and other planets. When these breaches occurred men were forced to redefine the physical laws, reality did not re-arrange itself.

Atheism (the dictionary definition) requires disbelief. It requires disbelief in miracles, it requires disbelief in the gospels, in the Khoran, and many other things.

It requires a rational decision to disregard as untrustworthy the testimony of thousands of otherwise credible folks in favor of a proposition for which there is NO evidence; ie- that there is no higher power and no divinity.

Rational people choose to believe in spiritual things rationally, based on evidence. That they choose to hold such evidence as historical accounts to be sufficient proof of their belief is a rational choice. It just happens to be a belief you do not share.

You should not burden them with the label 'irrational' because you don't share their beliefs.

[BurtWorm]

125. Do you believe in the Quran?

If so, why aren't you Muslim? If not, are you a partial atheist?

[txaslftist]

133. I don't know what a "partial atheist" is, so I'll reserve comment on that.

Especially since no one seems to be able to agree on a definition of "atheist", although all seem to agree that the dictionary definition I cited above is inadequate. Atheism may be kind of like "socialism" in that respect, a label conveniently adopted to cover a wide range of beliefs.

I can say that I affirmatively believe in God, and that I affirmatively believe that there is truth to be found in the gospels, in the Khoran, in the sacred texts of Hinduism and in the teachings of the Buddha. I believe my personal path to understanding things divine is going to come from Christ, not because that is the only path, but because it is the path most familiar to me.

I am horrified by what is said and done in the name of Christ, of course, but I cannot ignore the wonderful things that have been done in his name, either. As an attorney, I am naturally skeptical, but I also have to acknowledge facts.

I once would have called myself an agnostic, my understanding of the term being that I had insufficient proof to have faith. The birth of three children and an understanding of what "evidence" is have both led me toward faith, rather than away from it.

In regard to Christianity, one has a stark choice to make. Either Christ performed miracles, or he was a con-man and the four gospels are a flat out lie. In reading them, I look for the earmarks of truth, the same as I would in reading any witness account. To me, they ring true. They sound like honest accounts. Especially in the way the writers don't hesitate to deprecate themselves and to point out to others that many witnesses were (at the time) still around to verify their truth.

Does that mean that every word in the four gospels is true? Probably not. My brother is a literalist, I am not. I don't think you have to take every word as literal truth to find truth in them. When it comes to the question of what I accept versus what I don't accept, like every rational person, I must decide based on my own rationality, biases, personal experiences and genuine feeling.

The atheist often seems to believe that the believer is some sort of Rube at a carnie, incapable of independent thought, merely spouting out the warm pablum he received from his equally uninformed parents. There is a refusal to accept that intelligent, thinking people can come to faith based on reason, experience and logic.

To me, atheism (as defined in the dictionary, not here) is just skepticism writ large; rationalism edified and a denial of the mystical in our existence. Have I ever personally witnessed a 'miracle'? I've seen people survive what were considered mortal wounds, I've heard my own children say amazing things...

Were these miracles? I don't know. But certainly even the most devout rationalist cannot pretend that human science has an explanation for everything that occurs in this world.

Is religion the source of some really wacky crap? Sure. I believe very strongly that Darwin had it right about evolution. Does that mean there's no God? Darwin never said he'd proved the non-existence of God, did he?

This is perhaps too long a response to your post.

[BurtWorm]

150. I appreciate your taking the time to write such a long response.

:toast:

I toast your effort!

My understanding of Jesus: He's pure myth--which isn't to say he's a liar or the original Christians were liars. In fact I think the original mythological (gnostic) Christianity, from what I understand of it, was vastly more honest than the "authorized" version handed down to the present day. The miracles are just part of the story, and the story is not about the literal "Son of god and a virgin" but about how anyone can be a Christ if you follow the right path (a ritual path to Pythagorean initiation in the mysteries, to be exact).

My understanding of atheism: It's rooted in a low tolerance for bullshit, you should pardon the expression. I think that's where mine comes from, anyway. I'm not going to have two standards for the universe--one based on my experience of being alive on this planet and another based on a story in a holy book. I actually came to view myself as an atheist (rather than just an agnostic with mystical tendencies) after being convinced, by two superior arguments in two amazing books, that Jesus was myth. (If you're interested, Google "Earl Doherty" and "Joseph Wheless.")

My understanding of "the divine": It's a human invention, and it's always going to be corrupted by human minds ostensibly trying to fathom it. I don't see how you can divorce the human from the divine, and if you can't do that, then how can you say it's any different?

[Dorian Gray]

170. Tx...

I'm just curious? Have you read any Peter Kreeft? Your argument for religious belief seems to be similar to what he has purported in his writings?

[txaslftist]

175. No. I came the long way around.

I've never read any of the Christian apologists. My reference for the "either the apostles were a bunch of liars or Jesus was the son of God" was something I heard a bodyguard say on some reality show. I thought about it, and it's actually quite true.

I don't know where he heard it.

[BurtWorm]

180. Actually, it's a false dichotomy.

There are other possibilities besides those two. The apostles may have been mistaken, for example. Or the Jesus story (including the apostles) may be myth.

[Zhade]

239. THANK you. I was just going to post to that effect.

Tons of possibilities.

My take, fwiw: if it's ever proven Jesus actually existed (it hasn't), then I think it likely we'd discover he was pretty much just a human, a fiery orator at that, and a potential problem the Romans put down.

That itself would be fascinating, just because I find those who challenge the system, for good or ill, to be interesting figures. A historically real, flesh-and-blood nondevine Jesus would be perhaps even more amazing than the Mithra-esque myth adopted by the early Christians - against the purported teachings of the alleged Jesus, even!

[BurtWorm]

283. Unfortunately, it's not likely such a figure will ever be uncovered

from history. A whole library, with books from different authors all citing his life, would have to be discovered. As it stands, belief in that heroic Jesus requires just as much faith as belief in the divine one.

[Zhade]

236. Wrong. It requires a lack of belief.

"Disbelief" would mean there is something there to disbelieve.

No one has ever proven there is. Thus, I lack belief in unproven gods.

There is no independent evidence of the myths of Christianity, any more than there is evidence that the Greek myths are literally true events.

And as every cop will tell you, eyewitnesses are notoriously unreliable. Heck, the events the alleged eyewitnesses saw as described in the New Testament weren't even written until about 100 years after Jesus' purported death.

[papau]

316. Well said

:toast:

:-)

[JNelson6563]

225. Miracles are magical

One must subscribe to such thinking to buy into them. As to the miracles of Jesus, there was more than one who such claims were made about, including the "resurrection". Can you imagine a vocal, zealous minority shouting down all the others? I can't think of many more timeless characteristics, very common even today.

Julie

[Az]

17. Logic and rational thought are tricky

They are useless against experience and are dependent on the infrastructure of premises the individual has. Thus a mind that has a belief in god will attempt to apply their logic and reason to the world as they have come to know it. Thus your logic is reduced to mere words with no impact. To you they seem to the height of irrationality. To them you appear a closed off individual who has not experienced the things they have.

The trouble with using logic to argue about god is you have to get both sides set of premises to mesh before you can apply the same flows of logic.

[papau]

34. words with no impact - NOW WE ARE AGREEING! and as we agree

to talk past each other, it really is time for lunch.

[BurtWorm]

55. But is there a single theist who denies that faith is required

to be a theist? Faith despite no evidence? Isn't that precisely what faith is? If you arrive at a conclusion based on reason, we're not talking about faith. Is there a single theist who can honestly claim they can arrive at God via reason alone?

Skinner mentioned two "reasons" to be a theist: a) everyone else believes, therefore it must be true and b) Pascal's wager--I'll believe because I can't lose. Perhaps those are reasons to be a theist, but are either of those reasons to believe in God? No. You have to have faith to believe in God. Faith is what believing in God is all about. Isn't it?

[papau]

72. yes

:-)

[Skinner]

74. Please don't drag me into this argument.

The manner that you have paraphrased my post makes it sound like I believe there are only two reasons to be a theist. My post did not say that, nor was I trying to argue the point that you are making.

To be clear: I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the substance of your post. But I would prefer that my arguments not be used in support of either side of the believer/non-believer divide. I have been careful not to take sides publicly.

[txaslftist]

77. I like your dog.

[BurtWorm]

96. Sorry, but I thought I was reporting your post fairly.

I didn't say you believed these were the only reasons or even good reasons, just that you mentioned those two. I certainly didn't get the impression that you were arguing anything other than that those are "reasons" a theist might cite for being a theist. I'm just saying those may (or not) be good reasons to be a theist, but they're decidely not good reasons to believe in God. You have to resort to faith to get to God, and faith is not rational.

[papau]

15. "as easily been said by a believer" - very true

:toast:

:-)

[Deep13]

21. I don't think so.

The arguments for and against religion are not mirror images of each other. Religion by definition is based on faith and tradition, not evidence. Again, it is not my intent to dissuade people from being religious as I have no mandate to "go ye therefore and teach all nations". Again, I respect religious people like my mother, my employer, Bill Clinton, Einstein etc. Nevertheless, my own atheism is premised on the idea that belief is irrelevant and that only evidence matters. I cannot prove a negative, but there is real reason to believe that God/s were fabricated by the human mind and that divinity is not necessary to explain the universe. Anyway, no one has every been harmed by a refusal to believe.

"And it's not an answer to say, 'But we're *actually* right an they're not.' That is what many believers would say as well."

Many 'believers' do say that and rely on nothing more than their own subjective beliefs. Those who rely on evidence are led by what that evidence demonstrates. We cannot ignore evidence because it does not support our world view of accepting divergent opinions.

[Skinner]

22. That is not my point.

You have good reasons to believe that the arguments for and against religion are not mirror images. It is an argument that (I think) almost all non-believers would agree with. But I doubt that most believers would see the difference you articulate. But that is not my point.

My point is that the OP is arguing that disrespect is permissable. This begs the question whether believers are also free to argue that disrespect is permissable. Allow me to repeat my as-of-now unanswered question from above:

By setting up a test by which desrespect is permissable, it creates a situation where the other side is "free" to make a similar argument. When a non-believer says that disrespect is permissable, then wouldn't it (in effect) give permission to the other side to disrespect as well?

[Az]

26. To answer your question

We make the world we live in. If we treat others with disrespect regarding their beliefs we are only teaching them how to treat us.

[Skinner]

31. I'm not sure I would use the word "teaching" in this context.

Many believers did not need to be "taught" how to disrespect. They figured it out just fine on their own. I think that "justifying" might be a better fit.

I feel pretty strongly that when one side justifies this type of thing, they are giving the other side the green light to act the same way.

[Az]

37. Agreed

There is plenty of animosity on either side already. Opening the flood gates by launching a diatribe is probably not the best course to take if you are trying to represent reason.

[Deep13]

27. The article seems to suggest that we are not free to have a difference...

...of opinion on anything. I can choose to disapprove of the way my neighbor is painting his house or I may simply decide not to have an opinion. That does not mean I do not repect him or the fact that he has a right to paint anyway he wants. To know the answer to the question, one must define precisely what one means by 'respect.' It means different things to different people.

Yes, disapproval of the idea of another means that I do not respect that particular view or the process to arrive at that view. This does not mean that I do not respect that person as the writer suggests. There are some unspoken assumptions in your question and in the writer's article. In particular, whether or not I respect someone's religious views have no bearing on that person at all. After all, my opion hardly amounts to a commandment in stone.Disagreement is part of being a human and I do not need to agree to appreciate another's humanity. I can respect someone and still think he is 100% dead wrong. Secondly, 'believers' do not look to my views to decide whether or not to respect something. The short answer to your question, therefore, is 'no.' They will disrespect my views regardless of what I think about them as they are driven by there own perspective and not by what I think. That should be abundantly clear from history. I will not assume any responsibility for the thoughts or actions of anyone else.

[Skinner]

40. I agree with most of this.

I think you are correct that what one means by "respect" must be defined. IMHO, respect does not suggest agreement. I agree that you can respect someone and still think he is 100% wrong.

I also agree that in most cases, when believers show disrespect to non-believers it is not because non-believers have justified that behavior. They have figured out how to disrespect non-believers quite effectively on their own.

Still, I think that *if* non-believers desire to be respected by believers (and I am aware that many non-believers do not desire respect from believers) it seems counterproductive to say "I deserve respect, but you do not."

[Deep13]

50. Fair enough.

I would not, however, demand that believers respect my nonbelief except to the degree that we are all entitled to our own opinions, including those who disagree with me.

[BurtWorm]

44. Why isn't the basic "respect" Blackburn discusses sufficient?

I respect a person's right to believe or not believe whatever they choose to. I even respect a person's right to disrespect my beliefs, as long as they don't disrespect them disrespectfully. I know it sounds silly, but the point is, you can't expect a person on either side to do more than respect another's right to think what they want if you also want to foster honest discussion and debate. Honestly, I don't respect many of the principles of religions, in general and specifically, and this is a hard-earned disrespect based on years of experience living on a planet where the religious are an extremely influential lot.

[Skinner]

66. Perhaps that "basic respect" is sufficient...

...if that is the level of respect you think you deserve from believers. Ultimately, that is a personal choice. I cannot tell you where you would draw that line. But I am saying that if anyone wants a particular "level" of respect from the other side, that person should be willing to give the other side that same "level" of respect.

(Full disclosure: I'm talking about "in the real world" of course. Here on DU we admins set the minimal standard, so to some degree I can tell you where to draw the line while you are here. But let's not get sidetracked into a discussion of the DU rules.)

[BurtWorm]

106. I expect just the same respect to atheists in the US as to believers

This would mean an end to the reflexive perpetuation of the "Judeo-Christian" values myth; an understanding among theists that "under God" is as offensive to an atheist as "under a Christian God" would be to Jews, Muslims, Deists, and Native Americans (for starters); and a just more recognition that atheism is a legitimate even "normal" position to hold. That's pretty simple, isn't it? But the US is very far from that standard.

[Skinner]

112. I think your expectations are reasonable.

And it is obvious that the US, as a whole, is far from that standard.

[kwassa]

135. You have faith in evidence, then. That is your religion.

Now, what constitutes evidence could be a subject for another debate.

[jackthesprat]

145. Why not this debate?

And saying, Everything is faith, is just tautology.

[Zhade]

237. There is no requirement to respect a wrong belief.

I don't respect the belief that the earth is flat, or the belief (held by an astounding 1/4th of Americans!) that the sun revolves around the earth. Why should I be forced to respect a belief that is wrong just because it is a religious one?

I will not afford religious beliefs clearance I wouldn't any other other issue. That said, I will also not hold a believer to be anything less than as fully human as myself, and will hold them in the same regard as anyone else. Their actions, not their beliefs, are what I measure them by.

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. I have to give this quote from Blackburn's article

Note: this is aimed at 'rapture' believers, who seem to have little feeling for their fellow humans - Blackburn says "what passes for religion in the so-called "religious right". DU Christians - this does not mean you.

Onto-religion is probably that which the ordinary person in the pew supposes
himself to be holding and voicing by his observances. This is clearest when the
observances include beliefs about this order of space-time, and the causally connected
events that may be expected within it. A friend of mine at Cambridge once had a room
cleaner who was a Jehovah’s Witness. Her life seemed to be passed mainly in happy
expectation of shortly being among the few saved who would be privileged to ascend
Castle Hill (a kind of hillock barely higher than the tallest buildings) and “watch the
slaughter”. She lived with a very definite expectation, just on a par with the expectation
of night and day (or perhaps she did not quite, if Hume is to be believed). Much of what
passes for religion in the so-called “religious right” seems about the same. When the
shining day of Rapture comes, the air will be full of flying Christians, toting ghostly guns
and riding ghostly SUVs, exulting over the slaughter of everyone else below. It is but a
short step to supposing that there may be definite strategies for hurrying this desirable
event along, such as blowing people up, or voting for President Bush.

http://www.phil.cam.ac.uk/~swb24/PAPERS/religion%20and%20respect.pdf

[Az]

23. I fear this is a logical fallacy, namely the fallacy of the slippery sloap

There seems to be some expectation in discussions between believers and nonbelievers that the matter will be resolved in a single pass. That the logic and passion of one side is so convincing that a reasonable person should simply give in and convert on the spot.

I have been debating religion for nearly 2 decades now I have never seen a believer or a nonbeliever convert on the spot after a debate in my entire time(no jokes about the quality of the debater). What I have seen is that each engagement and each discussion make a little impact (if done properly) and over time a position may shift. I have seen people lose their faith in such a way and seen people find a faith as well.

The notion of respecting someone with a differing belief merely requires understanding of this fact. You are not going to be able to talk them out of their belief. Their reasons for believing the things they do make perfect sense to them within the premises of their positions. Their premises are built upon their life's experiences and learned ideas. The structure and form of logic you may be applying simply may not be finding common ground in their structure to make a substantial difference.

You do not have to allow them to control your mind to show them respect. That is the fallacy here. All it takes is understanding of when you have come to a place in your discussion where your structure no longer finds common ground with their's. You don't have to like their beliefs but you also do not have to ridicule them. You can stop at that point and walk away in hopes that the covnersation you have had to that point will in time build more common ground or you can continue the conversation upon other areas where you can find common ground.

[More Than A Feeling]

29. Couldn't have said it better!

:toast:

[papau]

35. here, here - - well said! :-)

:-)

[beam me up scottie]

45. Really?

You agree?

Then explain to me again why you find my definition of my atheism unacceptable.

I would never presume to redefine your faith.

[papau]

47. I define the concept of faith by the Englisg definition - I do not define

"your faith" - cute wording but I'll stick with English.

[beam me up scottie]

51. You tell me that I do not understand the definition of atheism.

So is correctly identifying a lack of evidence your definition of "faith"?

I think the dictionaries would disagree.

[papau]

53. "correctly identifying a lack of evidence" depends on rejecting evidence

by saying it is not logical.

And faith is not logic based.

Rejecting the possibility you are wrong also requires faith. The dictionary, I fear, favors my definition.

[beam me up scottie]

67. Reject WHAT evidence???

SHOW me irrefutable evidence that gods exist and let me reject it before you accuse me of it.

[papau]

71. "irrefutable evidence"? - perhaps it is time for you to meditate?

:-)

[beam me up scottie]

79. Don't have any,

do you?

That's what I thought.

Don't accuse me of rejecting evidence that does not exist and do not accuse me of rejecting your deity when there is no evidence that it exists.

[papau]

90. My "evidence" is adequate - in my opinion - to have faith in?

Why is faith a construct so hard to get a handle on?

[beam me up scottie]

99. It's not, you use it to get to your god.

It requires no evidence, that is why it's called "faith".

And anecdotal evidence is not acceptable proof of the existence of deities.

[papau]

107. Not fair - you are arguing my side of this :-) "not acceptable proof"

is not on point when working the metaphysical side of the street

"you "use" it to get to your god" - well what does "use" mean in a discussion about faith?

[beam me up scottie]

115. You require faith to believe in your deity.

Nobody is arguing that except you.

Acknowledging the fact that there is no evidence of such a being does not require faith.

Just the ability to understand the universally accepted definition of evidence.

[papau]

120. "universally accepted definition of evidence" argument is not enough

in metaphysics

If we insist on playing in metaphysics then it would help if we agree that neither side has the luxury of not needing to "prove" its position. Indeed the "universally accepted definition of evidence" is a discussion point ina metaphysical discussion.

Perhaps if I say that there is no scientific proof of God that is available to those that demand reproducibility on demand, nor a "need" for God beyond the need in the world of BIG BANG - and feel free to deny that the beginning of existence requires anything, but if you do please allow me to laugh at your explanations about how existence began - then we would have agreement?

If so, I so state!

:toast:

:-)

[beam me up scottie]

126. You haven't read a word I've typed.

Unbelievable.

Scratch that.

Very believable since this isn't the first time we've had this discussion, nor the second, nor the third.

Once more:

I do not care to debate the existence of your god or any other.

That is an obvious waste of time since your belief is based on faith.

However, if you claim that it exists and that there is evidence to prove it, it falls to you to provide such evidence, and not to us to prove the negative, since we are not arguing that there are no gods, only that there is no evidence of them.


And I am asking you to stop misrepresenting atheism in order to beg the question.



IOW, stop telling us that we reject something that we do not know exists.

[papau]

172. You haven't read a word I've typed.- or so it seems

I do not care to debate your belief that my God does not exist.

That is an obvious waste of time since your belief is based on faith. Despite many posts that ask you to prove that my God does not exist, you insist that lack of "scientific" proof of God's existence is all that you must show.

I do claim that God exists and that there is evidence to prove it, but it fall to you to explain why my evidence, in a metaphysical debate, is not adequate.

It os unbelievable that you do not understand that there is a difference between the requirements of metaphysical "proof" and scientific "proof". It is like you have never read Plato and only conclusion driven.

If you are saying that the there is no scientific evidence of God, we have could agreement, if you will then state how creation happened.


Please stop pretending you have a lock on logic - you do not - and please stop pretending that belief in what can not be proved - beliefe that there is no God - does not require faith.

I am asking to stop pretending that you are not misrepresenting the meaning of words so as to pretend atheism is something it is not.

What "logic" you use to reject "God" is your problem - although I am curious to see if to your creation theory is as pathetic as the principal that it is not a real question because we are here.

I am glad you find comfort in being certain you know what you know, and know what you do not know. It is good that your faith gives your comfort.

[beam me up scottie]

190. Now there's the REAL Papau.

:applause:

Took you long enough to get down to business.

Congratulations, I think you've managed to use every example of non-critical thinking available to you while ignoring the basic rules of reasonable and civilized debate.

Again:

:applause:

[papau]

197. applause to all who took part in this thread

:applause:

:applause:

:applause:

But for the record, I believe you have a lock on "non-critical thinking" :-(

I do feel bad that you believe we have not had reasonable and civilized debate.

Can a debate be reasonable and civilized if at the end no opinions were changed?

[Skinner]

199. Let's nip this sub-thread in the bud too.

Thanks.

[txaslftist]

54. Atheism defined

Atheism: 1.a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. b. The doctrine that there is no God or gods. 2. Godlessness; immorality. (Fr. atheisme; Gk. atheos, godless:...

-American Heritage College Dictionary.

[BurtWorm]

58. "Disbelief in" is not equivalent to "denial of the existence of"

Most atheists I know disbelieve.

Just to be clear.

[papau]

62. As Plato would say - "know" & " truth" & "believe" require a book or two

to define.

[beam me up scottie]

63. Who writes the dictionaries?

That is a theist's definition, not an atheists.

This is about atheism defined by atheists and respecting our definition.

Would you like for us to redefine your belief?

I'm afraid you wouldn't care for our definition and you would see such an attempt as disrespect just as we do.

[papau]

69. Your definition is not logical - God - that felt good to say that! :-)

:-)

[beam me up scottie]

104. What is my definition of atheism?

I'll bet you don't even know.

You continue to argue that your definition is the correct one;
which one is incorrect and why?

[txaslftist]

110. I thought you said you posted your definition a dozen times...

...I guess I missed those posts.

Out of curiosity, though, what IS your definition of atheism?

[beam me up scottie]

128. I'll give you a broad definition used by Austin Cline

in his Guide to Agnosticism / Atheism.

Theism, broadly defined, is simply the belief in the existence of at least one god. Contrasted with this is atheism: broadly defined, it is the absence of belief in the existence of any gods. There is, unfortunately, some disagreement about this definition of atheism. It is interesting to note that most of that disagreement comes from theists — atheists themselves tend to agree on what atheism means.

Christians in particular dispute the definition used by atheists and insist that atheism means something very different. According to them, atheism is the denial of the existence of any gods; the absence of belief in any gods is, for some strange reason, often ignored — at best it might be mistakenly referred to as agnosticism, which is actually the position that knowledge of gods is not possible.

[txaslftist]

134. So what do you call an affirmative belief that there are no Gods?

[jackthesprat]

136. A clear conscience.

[beam me up scottie]

138. I call it delusional.

One cannot logically deny the existence of things that are unknown to them.

Such people call themselves atheists and I suppose I have no right to say that they are not, however, here is where I agree with papau and you.

Active disbelief in that which cannot be defined is indeed faith.

My beef with you guys is that I, and every other DU atheist I know, do not fit that definition.

Thank you for asking me, I appreciate the show of respect.

Really.



Correction:

I now know of one DU atheist that fits that description.

[jackthesprat]

141. Here's a problem:

Do you deny that a giant lion will devour all of us after death? Why....or why not?

[beam me up scottie]

142. No.

I'm not privy to that sort of knowledge, sorry.

I've seen this game before and I'm not playing.

Anyone who thinks they know that which cannot be known has a god complex.

That's my opinionated opinion and I'm sticking with it.

Move along.

[jackthesprat]

143. Thanks.

you have no interest in knowledge. You said it.

[beam me up scottie]

146. Right.

Whatever you say, Cap'n
:patriot:

[Az]

144. Smurfs

Most people do not claim to believe in smurfs. As a result we do not have to designate our lack of belief in smurfs to differentiate ourselves. If there were a significant number of people that believed in smurfs we who did not believe in smurfs would declare our difference with the label asmurfists.

Now can we prove that smurfs do not exist? Not without complete knowledge of the universe or sufficient definition of smurfs that we can rule them out by some other means. But a concrete means of refuting smurfs is not necissary to acknowledge that we don't happen to believe in them.

[jackthesprat]

148. There are millions of speculative objects in the universe.

I can prove that the Christian religion has a tradition of describing the nature or existence of God: Then one can make tests to see whether they are true. As your smurf example shows, most objects of the world can be given equal skepticism; the logic of formal doubt is the same.

[Az]

149. Exactly

Given a detailed enough description of god we can refute that particular claim of god with evidence. If insufficient detail is provided then we have little to operate on but neither must we grant acceptance of the claim.

[papau]

314. refute in a scientific sense is not possible with "faith" - but the theist

is free to ask, if you reject "god", what is your creation myth?

[Az]

Faith isn't the point

Once you lay the evidence out for a child that Santa doesn't exist their continued insistance that he does is beyond any hope of reaching. They will have to come around on their own.

The same is true of god. In your case it seems as though you enjoy running around in front of a group of atheists proclaiming your faith in god and then bolting back under the covers when they ask for evidence of your claims.

Yes, we cannot make you drop your faith. We are fine with that. But as long as you do not present evidence for us to consider do not be suprised if we continue to not believe in god.

This is the nature of our positions. We do not wish to talk past you but if you choose not to engage us in conversation beyond your own particular subjective claims we really can't talk to you. So it becomes a curiousity that you choose to engage us in dialog deliberately knowing you are not going to expose the conversation to anything potentially productive.

I can personally atest that it is always my hope to be productive in a conversation with another. I believe my fellow atheists are of the same relative mindset in this factor. This leads me to believe that while we are being genuine you may not be. I hope this is not true but it is becoming increasingly difficult for me to not see it this way.

If you honestly believe there is no way for us to engage in a reasoned conversation where ideas are exchanged in a civil manner then why are you talking to us. Given this interpretation of the situation I can only fathom that you are taunting us and are malicious in your representation. This makes me sad.

I would very much like to be wrong.

[papau]

324. Sorry you feel sad -" evidence of your claims" that is present such.

as the Bible would be hooted down as untruths - folks really did not see a Jesus or any miracles, per the atheist.

But the atheist has no proof they did not see a Jesus or any miracles. And Indeed a belief without proof is faith.

Yet you say "Faith isn't the point" ....


I am truly sorry you are sad.

[Az]

341. Faith is not necissary according to the bible

Doubting Thomas demonstrates this point. Even the bible recognises that faith alone may not carry the day. Thomas doubted Jesus' rise from the dead. He asked for evidence that it was truly him. If a man present there for the event could still doubt then it is not unreasonable for us so far removed to express doubt. And Jesus in the story seemed reticent but willing to provide evidence to those who doubt. There for by Jesus' own actions you entire argument about faith being absolute falls to peaces.

If faith was as manditory as you suggest Jesus would have closed his robe over the wound and left Thomas to deal with his doubts alone.

As to proving whether Jesus did any miracles? Again the burden falls on you. Citing the bible is going to be problematic due to numerous flaws within it. Most troubling are the contradictions and claims that almost certainly should have been recorded (earthquakes and zombies walking around after the resurrection etc).

You are the one with the positive claim. You don't have to defend your claim if you choose not to. But then we have no conversation. We can only refute or accept what you offer. Offer us nothing and there is no conversation. Which returns us to the question of just what are you up to anyway.

[papau]

347. Jesus does the reasonable thing while saying most folks will believe by

faith alone -

and you have a problem with this?

why?

[Az]

349. Evidence is not denied

Clearly faith is not manditory and when sincerly requested evidence is given. Why are we any different. Thus there certainly should be evidence supporting the existance of god. As Jesus is freely seen to give evidence when asked it should be reasonable that god would not conceal his presense. Faith is preferable but not required. So here we humble atheists sit requesting just a bit of evidence that we can rest our weary minds of this matter. And yet there is none to be had.

People tell me that my absense of belief is cause for damnation. And you ask me if I have a problem with this. Do you have no sympathy? Are you so numb that you care not whether someone spends eternity in hell simply because they were honest and did were not aware of the existance of god?

To hear your side talk of it this is not a game. Very real concerns may be at stake. I have to ask what you are about then. For you are clearly not interested in helping us find evidence. Your motivation seems placed somewhere else.

[papau]

365. Have some sympathy on the house - because evidence that I have

is adequate for me - but not for you -

so I sympathize

But eternity in hell is indeed the result of non-belief in God or "oneness" - although in my world view Hell is defined as not being close to God (the fire thing is not part of my beliefs)

Indeed this would be easier if we could all have a "sign" on a regular basis - but then I do not make the rules - or even understand them -

indeed the difference between you and I is that I believe there are rules in addition to ethics, and you say no.

But only the first rule - to acknowledge God as God - in my belief system - is critical. Jesus said love God, and love your neighbor - and all else will be ok.

I am cool with that.

[kwassa]

333. The experience of God is inherently subjective

AZ:
"We do not wish to talk past you but if you choose not to engage us in conversation beyond your own particular subjective claims we really can't talk to you. So it becomes a curiousity that you choose to engage us in dialog deliberately knowing you are not going to expose the conversation to anything potentially productive."

Unless you have had a strong spiritual experience of the presence of God, you will not understand what I am talking about when I am describing my experience because it is simply a life experience that you haven't had. Having such an experience is an entirely new thing, not particularly relatable to other life experiences. It is also extremely difficult to describe in words, which is why I think that discussions of the experience often go nowhere, even among believers themselves. Those that have had these experiences though recognize the kinship with others that have also had these experiences; we often simply recognize each other.

It is subjective? of course it is. Is there verifiable external evidence that would satify you or the other atheists here as a scientific form of evidence? Probably not. Does that mitigate the value of that experience? Not in the slightest, in my opinion. I know what I know, and I know what I've experienced. I recognize that others experience it, too. I recognize that humans have experienced it throughtout our entire history on this planet, and continue to do so now. It takes many different forms, but the impulse is universal and continuous. That history and interest indicates that there is evidence of something to it, but even if there were no history my personal experience would be enough for me to believe.

[Az]

356. Subjective experiences are becoming reachable

That is our understanding of the mind and the brain are giving us insite into where such subjective experiences come from. We literally can see when a person believes they are communing with god. We can quantify it and explain how such an experience comes about. And our understanding of this situation does not necissitate the existance of god.

Our minds create our reality. It is what we experience. Our emotions become attached to specific experiences and define how we feel about things. A simple argument against experiences we believe we have had will not overturn the impact of that experience.

We can actually cause a person to believe they have entered into a conversation with god. Not just the comminicative aspect of the experience. The full emotional impact of being in the presense of the creator of the universe. And yet the entire event is manufactured in the brain. It is an internal thing. Having to do with chemicals and neurons. It comes from how we identify self and how the brain conveys importance.

Subjective experiences are coming under the examination of objective science. There is still a ways to go. But just because you have a powerful experience with god does not mean we do not have a rational explanation for it. And yes I understand exactly how powerful the sense of reality god has for you. And I am sympathetic to the fact that my words challenge something that is important to you. But it does not change the fact that we do have the means to explain such things.

[papau]

366. The fact we can do something that causes the experience makes the

experience invalid because of what/why?

Subjective experiences coming under the examination of objective science ( pysch was not enough?) - in any case it is a bit like saying agnostic atheist - perhaps a partial truth - but there may be a bit less than meets the eye when logic is applied to the interaction of the chemicals and neurons, and the experience.

[arwalden]

258. It Makes Me Smile...

... whenever I read one of your Smurf analogies. It's just perfect.

[papau]

318. cannot logically deny the existence of things - we are on the same page

the only thing left is to change the dictionary definition of agnostic and atheist.

I wish all disagreements were this easy to solve.

:toast:

:-)

[beam me up scottie]

323. No, that's not what I said..

I said:

One cannot logically deny the existence of things that are unknown to them.

Furthermore, you have been provided with my definition of my atheism.

You just prefer to ignore it and incorrectly stereotype me and other atheists.

That is intolerance, papau.

And it's ugly.

[papau]

327. God is unknown to you - so why is that not what you said?

I thought we had agreement - but if not, OK.

[beam me up scottie]

147. See what you started?

:P

Excellent question!

[txaslftist]

70. Oh. I understand. Atheism means what you need it to mean.

The dictionary definition is just wrong.

[beam me up scottie]

82. Yes, the dictionary definition is wrong.

Perhaps I should tell you to use Richard Dawkins' definition of religion.

It's a virus.

Comfortable with that?

[Az]

64. Dictionaries

They pretty much relate the socially derived meanings of words. Even the definition you provided reflects this. Atheism = Immorality? Not exactly the definition we would apply to ourselves.

A little understanding of history gives us insite into how this definition came about. It has long been the contention of the more dogmatic and authoratarian theistic beliefs that not believing in god must be a deliberate act. This is derived from the notion that god must be a all mercifull benevalent being. There is no way they could imagine him damning someone simply for lacking a belief. Therefor the cast all atheists in the guise of rejecting god. We must be denying god.

Trouble is that simply not how the mind works. Its really not an intelligent understanding of the complexities of the matter. And it is not even true to the word itself. The definition you find in dictionaries reflects the social definition applied by theists to atheists. And for a lengthy period of time it may even have been the defintion many atheists applied to themself. But then for most of the time atheists were only dealing with singular claims of god instead of the multiplicity that we are aware of today.

The dictionary def does not fit. You can choose to insist upon it fitting which will lead to endless arguments over a trivial matter. Or you can accept our explanation of what atheism means to us, the actual atheists.

[txaslftist]

73. So we are not to accept the dictionary definition of a word...

...but to accept your 'moving target' definition instead.

So Atheism defines itself according to the Atheist's belief, not according to the "common meaning" of the word.

In that case, I'm a "saint", according to what I think the word means.

[Az]

81. Words change meaning

They are not static things. As culture and society change the relevance of different terms change as well. Depending on who is dominant in society the meaning of words can change per their view of them.

There are gods that I actively deny. There are gods that I simply do not believe in. The definition found in the dictionary you provided is insufficient to define the current state of affairs.

You can choose how you wish to deal with it. But I recommend you take whatever definition the individual you are talking to as the working definition for your conversation or you are going to be arguing semantics rather than issues. And you are going to find more and more atheists refuting the defintion found in dictionaries. Times change and so to do words.

[trotsky]

121. Christians do the same thing.

The "common meaning" of the word Christian is, one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ.

But call Pat Robertson, Jerry, Falwell, or George Bush a Christian on DU and you'll be met with cries of, "They're not REAL Christians!" According to the dictionary, they are, because they profess belief. Doesn't say anything about how they live or what they do, now does it?

[txaslftist]

186. Christian: defined

1. Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus. 2. Relating to or derived from Jesus. 3. Manifesting the qualities or spirit of Jesus. 4. Relating to or characteristic of Christianity. 5. Showing a loving concern for others; humane.

n - 1. One who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the teachings of the Christian religion. 2. One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

-American Heritage College Dictionary...

(these things are really handy to have around; you ought to get one).

[trotsky]

187. Nice try.

But if you get to pick & choose which definition you want to use, why do you slam atheists for not using the one you pick for them?

[txaslftist]

220. Yeah. That fugging dictionary. Always leading me astray.n/t

[trotsky]

224. Tough to acknowledge the hypocrisy, isn't it? n/t

[papau]

357. Finally atheist hypocrisy is acknowledged! Alleluia!! :-)

Of course atheist hypocrisy is solved by saying when challenged that atheist means agnostic.

[Az]

367. Finally papau's hatred exposed

Papau hates atheists. Rather he hates the image of atheists he has created in his mind. And he works hard to force all atheists into that mold. This is how the mind of a bigot works.

Bigot: All <target group> are like this.

Target: But I <member of target group> am not like that.

Bigot: Yes you are.

Target: This is what I am <lenghty explanation ensues>

Bigot: No you are not, this is what you are <bigotted presumption presented>

Target: Sorry, thats just not who I am.

Bigot: Yes it is.

And so on.

[beam me up scottie]

374. rAmen!

Damn, Az- way to nail it.

[trotsky]

391. Is that an example of Christian humility?

One of my hobbies is learning how to spot a "true" Christian, so I'm curious to know if mocking a group of people fighting for the right to be labeled how they see fit is something that Jesus would do.

[papau]

395. Yep - it is something Jesus would do to those statements that were false -

while at the same time loving those that made them and trying to show them the error of their ways.

Indeed both sides in this debate think they are showing tolerance of someone who is wrong.

[trotsky]

418. WWJM?

Whom Would Jesus Mock?

Gotta make me up some bracelets. Confirmed today by papau that mocking is a perfectly fine Christian thing to do.

[beam me up scottie]

419. Another Hallmark moment.

We should do a page a day calendar.

[beam me up scottie]

232. Religion: defined

Society provides a breeding ground for the “virus” of religion by labeling children with the religion of their parents. Children, in turn, absorb these beliefs because they are conditioned to do so.

Though it is universal, Dawkins said, religion is not widely beneficial.

Rejecting the theory of many of his contemporaries, Dawkins argued that religion has not helped people to adapt or to survive. Beyond acting as a source of solace, religion provides no protection against diseases or physical threats.

“A person who is faced with a lion is not put at ease when he’s told that it’s a rabbit,” Dawkins said.

Richard Dawkins

Archive: Skeptics & Atheists
http://www.edifyingspectacle.org/gullibility/blog/archives/skeptics_atheists/religion_a_virus_richard.php

The internet is even more handy to have around, and it wasn't written by christians.
:hi:

[papau]

78. I insist you are not atheists if you have no faith. You insist otherwise

because what you see is obvious and logical and requires no proof. I say requiring no proof is faith.

In the world of metaphysics what I see is obvious and logical.

Hmmmm . Perhaps we do not see eye to eye?

:toast:

:-)

[Az]

87. Finding common ground

We of course do not see eye to eye on all things. I would imagine that is impossible even for twins. But there are undoubtedly areas in which we can find common ground. And from there we can link back to areas where we do not share common ground and discuss how we might find ways to connect or perhaps correct misconceptions one another may have. This is the essense of dialog.

[papau]

93. True - now whose turn was it to buy the next round?

:toast:

:-)

[muriel_volestrangler]

244. But Blackburn's original article is not just about debate

it's about social interaction. He did the equivalent of walking away, by not participating in his host's ceremony, but that then affected the rest of the evening badly. This is more the equivalent of the debate going on in the A&A group about an atheist doing a bible reading at a wedding. By participating, how much do you signal your approval of the host's religion, rather than your tolerance? Or are you just politely acknowledging a need for everyone to have emotional traditions, as long as they don't harm others (though Blackburn also points out that you may feel that some parts of a religion do harm others - eg sexism - in which case, how much tolerance should you have for the religion as a whole?)

[cosmik debris]

61. Ancillary question

Should I respect racists even though I believe that their beliefs are based on myth?

[papau]

68. Respect As fellow humans? - why would you not respect a life form?

Are "beliefs are based on myth" the ultimate evil? What human does not have at least some part of their life faith based - or if you like -"based on myth"?

[cosmik debris]

76. You have turned it into a binary choice.

"a life form" vs. "ultimate evil" That framing is a little too extreme for me. I have no way to respond.

[papau]

80. But that is the kind of framing that will win elections! We all need to

practice it.

On a serious note, this topic is fun but I doubt that we will find a common ground beyond mutual respect - and we may not find that.

[cosmik debris]

92. I will propose a more concrete distinction

Should I respect the beliefs of a theist who believes in peace and love as much as I respect the beliefs of the theist who burns crosses on people's lawns? From my perspective, both seem to stem from sincere religious belief. Should they have equal value in the "Market Place of Ideas"?

[papau]

95. "beliefs" do not affect you - but acts do - I suggest we both reject

the evil acts and those that do evil acts.

[cosmik debris]

102. Can I take that as a yes.

They do have equal value in the Market Place of Ideas?

[papau]

103. Equal discussion "value" perhaps - but we all make value judgements

a bit differently.

[BurtWorm]

117. If "respect" means "recognition of the futility force

to change another's beliefs," then I could give just that much "respect" to anybody, even racists. But that is a very narrow definition of respect.

[txaslftist]

84. As an Atheist, why would you?

What's the difference between a flea and a man? What's the difference between a babboon and a man?

If there is no higher power to answer to, other than myself, why should I respect you at all, other than as a potential ally or victim?

Seriously, why? Because it's good for 'mankind' or 'society'? What do I care about that?

If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? If I cut off a man's head or gas him and no one finds out about it, did I really do anything wrong?

If these things are 'wrong', why are they wrong? Because I have to look beyond myself and believe other persons have rights? Why must I believe this? Do I have irrefutable proof of this? Or must I accept the existence of other persons and their equality with me on faith? And if I must accept these things on faith, why do I require 'irrefutable proof' before accepting other things on faith?

[beam me up scottie]

88. So atheists have no morals because we lack faith in your deity?

Whoo boy.

Glad we finally got that out into the open.

[txaslftist]

98. I don't know if you have ethics or not.

I have neither proof nor evidence one way or the other. Certainly there were noted atheists during the last century who practiced the ethos I have described.

[beam me up scottie]

100. Snort!!! There were ethics LONG before your religion existed, son

Egad.

Pick up a history book sometime.

[txaslftist]

105. Well, since the first written and recorded histories are religious texts..

...that's actually not so easy to determine.

[beam me up scottie]

111. What?

Are you serious?

I meant a CURRENT record of history.
:banghead:

[txaslftist]

113. You have a current record of history that doesn't rely on earlier sources?

I'd like to see that book.

[beam me up scottie]

118. You can't find a record of ancient history

that isn't based on the christian bible?

Here's a hint: try the library.

[txaslftist]

124. Who is talking about the bible?n/t

[beam me up scottie]

127. Did I or did I not say that ethics existed before your religion?

You questioned the validity of that statement.

Maybe I misunderstood exactly what it is that you need in order to accept the fact that ethics existed before christianity.

[txaslftist]

129. Well, I have to agree since Christianity didn't exist prior to 30 ad.

I misunderstood your post to mean that ethics existed before any religion (mine included). I'm not sure ethics can exist in the absence of divinity, but that's just me...

...and since I am a bigot and you cannot possibly reason with me, there's not much point in going on with this, is there?

[beam me up scottie]

130. If you do not believe that atheists are morally inferior to christians,

then you are not a bigot.

You just answered both my question and yours.

Again, please understand that most atheists separate religion from the religious.

When we criticize religion, we are not in any way criticizing you or your faith.

On the contrary, most atheists understand that to argue the existence of god is futile precisely because of that faith.

I personally detest organized religion, but most of my friends and some of my family are christians.

I will never tell you that your god does not exist and I will never belittle your faith.

Some of us occasionally envy it, actually.

[txaslftist]

157. The danger I see in atheism is the lack of a standard.

Religion (of whatever kind) says there is a standard of ethics to be followed, and here it is. You may not believe the standard is right, and heaven knows the vast majority of people within any given religion do NOT live up to it (myself included). But it is there.

Atheism (however you define it) says that there is no over arching standard of ethics, or at least if there is one, it is a matter of personal philosophy and choice. If that is the case, I can set my personal standard as low as I like and never fear consequences for failing to live up to it (so long as I don't get caught). It's okay for me personally to murder someone I don't happen to like, so long as I don't get caught and don't have to answer for it.

That is the ethical dilemma of atheism. There is no practical difference between an ethic that says "survival of the fittest" (the Republican marching song) is the rule and one that says "do under others". The proponents of the first ethic would likely consider the proponents of the second ethic to be dupes. Arguments can be made for the utility of either ethic.

[BurtWorm]

158. Have you ever heard of the Golden Rule?

Or the Constitution? Or the International Declaration of Human Rights? Those are standards atheists can abide by. We don't need religion or belief in God to know how to treat other people.

[txaslftist]

160. Sure, and the hammurabic code, and survival of the fittest...

...and the racial theories of the nazis, and the ethical theories of the Maoists. Are you saying that all atheists agree on the golden rule?

[Az]

162. I make no claim about what all atheists believe

I can atest to the fact that most see wisdom in the golden rule as you call it. But that premise is not unique to Christianity. I suspect you will find it in nearly any philosophy that has survived the test of time.

[BurtWorm]

164. Don't you believe in the Golden Rule?

Why wouldn't atheists believe in it. It's simple. It's direct. It's true. No reference to god. It's all about you and me right now. It's brilliant! (I like the Silver Rule, too: Don't do unto others what you wouldn't have them do unto you. In fact, I often find it more useful than the Golden Rule.)

[jackthesprat]

159. "atheism" only states that a transcendent being

is not necessary to have an ethical standard or system. You don't like getting a hammer smashed on your finger--why do it to someone else? Why is that so hard to comprehend?

[papau]

179. If "atheism" was about the non-need of belief in God for Ethics, this

thread would not exist.

This thread exists because one group wants to assert a superiorly in scientific, logical thinking and does so my redefining the way logic works when discussing the metaphysical - and then redefining the meaning of belief and faith.

[jackthesprat]

189. Not sure what you are saying.

I never said anything about science one way or the other.

[papau]

198. But the type of "proof" you demand is "science" and you will not allow

the metaphysical proof - or faith - to have validity.

[papau]

336. a transcendent being is not necessary to have an ethical standard-OK

we agree.

I did not know that was the only thing we were talking about.

interesting.

[Az]

161. Your problem is with relativistic morality

Not atheism. Atheism is not a developed philosophy. It is just a label applied to an individual that does not happen to believe in god or gods.

Now how we arrive at morality in our society is a completely different question. And there are a multitude of philosophies regarding this. And not all of them are reliant on gods. And most assuredly all of them are not in absolute agreement with each other.

You will find that most atheists have well developed sense of morals and ethics. Some are even quite vocal champions of ethics. It seems we have the wherewithal to develop our own sense of ethics. It seems to be the basis upon which this nation is founded. That We The People are able to guide ourselves.

[papau]

181. I have no problem with relativistic morality, and agree atheism is not

a developed philosophy.

Indeed I agree with the rest of your post.

[beam me up scottie]

165. I'm not even going to answer that.

I'm going to assume that you speak from ignorance and not prejudice.

[papau]

184. You are correct IMHO txaslftist -Ethics w/o religion is certainly possible

and indeed can be a set of rules concepts that we all agree are wonderful and appropriate.

But insisting on an atheistic approach is rolling the dice - and in general folks fall back on game theory and the ethics of a "survival" show on TV.

[Az]

192. Rolling dice?

First off there is no atheistic approach. There may be approaches that do not rely upon theism. But they are not insistant on being atheistic.

I will presume that the notions of atheistic approach may include such means as relativistic morality or even humanist approaches.

Both these methods use a system of self examination and consideration of situations. They are malliable and able to correct themself should they become aware of an injustice. I am not sure where rolling the dice comes into play here unless it is an appeal to a form of Pascal's Wager.

Actually the follow through of Pascal's Wager shows us that basing a moral or ethical foundation on god is in fact the real casting of dice. How are we to know that we have set the foundation of ethics and morality upon the shoulders of the right god or doctrine. Such ethical structures by nature cannot question the founding principles or adjust as new understanding comes forth in the society. That is truly casting dice. One had best hope your lot has been cast with the correct position.

[papau]

201. Pascal's Wager mocks the concept of faith -

Claiming a belief because such claim (not the belief itself) may "help" (in some logical end of life senario) is not faith.

[Az]

203. Indeed it does

I am glad you see that.

[papau]

212. OK - that means the next round is on you - I'll have Earl Grey

:-)

[BurtWorm]

200. If you asked those who participate on those shows if they believe in God,

what do you think they'd tell you, for the most part? Do you think they'd reflect the theological breakdown of DU or the nation at large?

[papau]

202. No

:-(

[BurtWorm]

213. I don't follow that answer either.

:crazy:

[papau]

216. Do you think they'd reflect the theological breakdown of DU or the nation

no

[BurtWorm]

223. Do you think most are atheists, in other words, or believers?

What do you think they would say?

[papau]

228. I have no idea which group is more comfortable with the ethics of a

survivor show.

I suspect many in each group would say to themselves - "it is only a game"

[BurtWorm]

233. Do you really suspect most atheists have those kinds of ethics?

What's your evidence for that belief?

I see people operating that way on the American right all the time, and that's not a hotbed of atheism, is it?

[papau]

338. evidence for that belief? - But You are correct I have no evidence which

is why I said I did not know the answer.

[BurtWorm]

343. Then why did you bring up "survivor shows?"

:wtf:

[papau]

358. I find a lack of ethics on survivor shows - do you disagree?

n/t

[BurtWorm]

363. Yes, but what does it have to do with theism vs. atheism?

[papau]

397. At some point we were discussing "quality of ethics" or was that a dream?

:toast:

:-)

[BurtWorm]

409. But you seem to be stepping away from your claims of yesterday.

Yesterday you seemed to be saying you couldn't have "quality" ethics without God, that without God, your ethics devolve into survivor show competition. Today, you seem to be willing to admit that you don't need God to construct a "quality" ethics.

Now let's be clear: Are you suggesting that atheist ethics have to devolve into survivor show competition or not? Are you suggesting that only theists can construct "quality" ethics? Are you suggesting that theists can't contruct "non-quality" ethics? If none of the above, why are we talking about ethics in this thread at all?

[jackthesprat]

131. Aristotle's "Ethics."

Still taught in universities today; still relevant. No reference to a divinity or any need for one.

[txaslftist]

163. Aristotle existed before religion?

I missed that part of the philosophy course.

[jackthesprat]

166. Excuse me?

You stated the date of the start of religion when?

[papau]

173. When did someone find proof that Aristotle was an atheist? "Ethics."

does not need a religious base - and if that is all you are saying, we have agreement.

[jackthesprat]

177. Aristotle was not a God believer.

The umoved mover is not the Christian God; no, not at all.
And "belief" plays no role in his philosophy.
Aristotle calls god, "Thought thinking itself." And not the creator.

Also, he criticizes religion severely for anthropomorphism; considers it childish and wrong.

[papau]

188. WOW - do you oversimplfy-but I agree he does "criticizes religion severely

for anthropomorphism; considers it childish and wrong."

Indeed we can agree that "The umoved mover is not the Christian God; no, not at all."

But we disagree on "belief" and its role in his philosophy and his life.

[jackthesprat]

195. No, I do not oversimplify.

I am practically quoting Aristotle's own words. Please refute what I said if you want to develop your accusation.

[papau]

214. " practically quoting Aristotle's own words"? - feel free to post those

words when you get a chance.

[jackthesprat]

353. I did.

Aristotle's own words: God is defined as "thought thinking itself."
In the metaphysics.

[papau]

371. I guess you hate context - below is a few more words stolen from the

internet http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/dbanach/arist.htm

God, for Aristotle, plays the role of both the eternal cause of all motion and the ultimate final cause of all motion and change. Motion is eternal for Aristotle; it is impossible that there could be a first motion, for this would require another motion to get it started. Nothing moves without a cause for Aristotle. The cause of this eternal motion cannot be simply another motion in the chain, it must itself be eternal and it must be unmoved itself. If it were not eternal it could not explain eternal motion. If it were moved itself, this motion itself would require another explanation. The eternal motion of nature requires an eternal unmoved mover or cause. This unmoved eternal mover is God for Aristotle.

God is also the ultimate final cause of all things. All things tend towards God as their final state or goal, as a lover moves toward his beloved. It is the desire for this ultimate goal or fulfillment that fuels each object's development towards its own particular goal. God is seen as perfect activity or pure form; it is thought thinking itself.
:-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
For Aristotle, the soul is the form of a living creature. It is the arrangement of the matter of its body so as to allow it to carry on all of the peculiar functions of living organisms. He identifies five such distinctive powers of the soul, all of which are not found in all organisms: (1) The nutritive: This is the power living beings have to grow and take in nourishment. (2) The appetitive: This is the power of desiring. (3) The sensory: This is the power of perceiving things with the senses. (4) The locomotive: This is the ability to move. (5) The reasoning.

These are the different functions which the souls of different organisms fulfill. They are not parts of the soul, but different powers which organisms organized by a soul or form of the right type can exercise.

And the original:

http://www.msu.org/e&r/content_e&r/texts/aristotle/arist_text18.htm

Metaphysics, Book XII, Chapter 9:
32. The nature of the divine thought involves certain problems; for while thought is held to be the most divine of things observed by us, the question how it must be situated in order to have that character involves difficulties. For if it thinks of nothing, what is there here of dignity? It is just like one who sleeps. And if it thinks, but this depends on something else, then (since that which is its substance is not the act of thinking, but a potency) it cannot be the best substance; for it is through thinking that its value belongs to it. Further, whether its substance is the faculty of thought or the act of thinking, what does it think of? Either of itself or of something else; and if of something else, either of the same thing always or of something different. Does it matter, then, or not, whether it thinks of the good or of any chance thing? Are there not some things about which it is incredible that it should think? Evidently, then, it thinks of that which is most divine and precious, and it does not change; for change would be change for the worse, and this would be already a movement. First, then, if 'thought' is not the act of thinking but a potency, it would be reasonable to suppose that the continuity of its thinking is wearisome to it. Secondly, there would evidently be something else more precious than thought, viz. that which is thought of. For both thinking and the act of thought will belong even to one who thinks of the worst thing in the world, so that if this ought to be avoided (and it ought, for there are even some things which it is better not to see than to see), the act of thinking cannot be the best of things. Therefore it must be of itself that the divine thought thinks (since it is the most excellent of things), and its thinking is a thinking on thinking.

33. But evidently knowledge and perception and opinion and understanding have always something else as their object, and themselves only by the way. Further, if thinking and being thought of are different, in respect of which does goodness belong to thought? For to he an act of thinking and to he an object of thought are not the same thing. We answer that in some cases the knowledge is the object. In the productive sciences it is the substance or essence of the object, matter omitted, and in the theoretical sciences the definition or the act of thinking is the object. Since, then, thought and the object of thought are not different in the case of things that have not matter, the divine thought and its object will be the same, i.e. the thinking will be one with the object of its thought.

34. A further question is left-whether the object of the divine thought is composite; for if it were, thought would change in passing from part to part of the whole. We answer that everything which has not matter is indivisible-as human thought, or rather the thought of composite beings, is in a certain period of time (for it does not possess the good at this moment or at that, but its best, being something different from it, is attained only in a whole period of time), so throughout eternity is the thought which has itself for its object.

[jackthesprat]

375. No, don't hate context.

Just surprised you didn't know where those words came from.
And not reading your paste; why post it? You were the one unfamiliar with Aristotle.

[papau]

382. You are the one that claimed the old Greek was an Atheist - or did I

read that incorrectly?

[jackthesprat]

387. Yes, you did misread.

That is why this thread keeps growing. Farewell

[papau]

396. How did I misread "Aristotle was not a God believer." - LOL

in any case....

Farewell

[papau]

89. ethics - now that is a good question, and manners - another good

question. And 'irrefutable proof' of that which is believed by faith alone.

I agree with your post.

[beam me up scottie]

97. And another one reveals himself.

Now I can walk away secure in the knowledge that bigots cannot be reasoned with.

Your belief that you are morally superior to me is the reason for your disrespect.

[Name removed]

122. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[papau]

174. Do you not believe you are more logical and therefore morally

superior to me ?????

Bigot is an interesting word.

[beam me up scottie]

183. Do you really think logic is the same thing as morality?

If so, I cannot help you.

[papau]

208. I did not know there was an area where I needed help - it is kind of

you to offer my your wisdom so as to help me.

For the 3rd time in this thread, morality and ethics can be developed without religion.

And for the 100th time "logic" is in a metaphtsical discussion is not limited to the "scientific" logic that you attempt to limit this discussion of God to.

[beam me up scottie]

217. WHAT discussion of god?

Man alive...
:banghead:
I never discussed the existence or non of the dude.

All I did was ask you to show a little respect and stop redefining atheism and telling atheists that their definition is unacceptable.

[papau]

250. The "redefined" atheist refuses to admit to faith? - OK - whatever floats

your boat

[beam me up scottie]

260. Sorry, you're the believer in the supernatural, not I.

Let me know when you get rid of your virus and maybe we'll be able to have an actual reality-based conversation.

[papau]

308. "reality based" - I think what we are discussing is "what is reality"

and does it exist beyond the bounds of the scientific method.

Hope my virus does not get in the way of our relationship.

[beam me up scottie]

317. Your virus will not infect me.

Science and skepticism have inoculated me.

I am immune.

[Az]

94. Because we are human

Simply put we are social creatures. Part of who we are is that social connection between each other. A sociopath may have no conern about others but we are not sociopaths.

Our sense of right and wrong comes from our own sense of what harms us and projection of these notions to those we care about around us and further unto our fellow humans.

You can boil it down to the reasons why we care by means of science but the simple fact is we do care about each other. It is our common sense of humanity and a bound with each other that drives our sense of justice and compassion. We do not require proof of these things. We experience them and are made by such exeriences.

But when we engage in discussions of truth and understanding then we sometimes need to raise issues of proof and evidence. If our pursuit of such things is more than whimsy then we develop methods to ascertain the truth of what we observe.

We are quite capable of living as compassionate human beings and critical observers at the same time.

[papau]

101. "proof and evidence" - must be defined - and then decided if needed

and how applied in a discussion of faith.

I expect all to be compassionate human beings , but I expect our critical observations interpretations will vary.

Man - this is like a first year class in Plato 50 years ago.

I hated writing a 20 page paper, when the grading was subjective based on the conclusion, back then.

I understand the need to expose others to your beliefs and the logic or faith behind them. I do not understand the need to get the other person to agree that you "are right".

[Az]

140. Its considered a form of progress

Ours is a complex world. We strive to understand it.

Think of false paths as mazes with no exits. They may be entertaining but they fail to lead anywhere.

[papau]

191. Admitting a circle exists is also a form of progress. Some questions

do not have scientific answers.

Indeed to insist that you "know" there is no God sounds to many like a mental decease

[Az]

196. Why presume

How do you know that science will not lead us to an understanding of the mind and an understanding of how societies function by way of the mind and further how ethical issues are resolved within the context of mind/society?

I make no presumptions that there are no gods nor do I make any presumptions of what science may or may not tell us.

[papau]

219. science will not lead us -or will lead us- either requires "faith" because

we can not know.

Although I do find interesting the folks that claim they can prove that science can not answer questions in area A and that it will one day answer all the questions in areaB.

[Az]

222. Absolute knowledge is not necissary

We have survived all of history without absolute knowledge of the world. But science as a method leads to ever increasing degrees of understanding. Better to strike a light than to curse the darkness.

Of course you could just sit in the darkness as well. But lighting things up just seems so much more interesting.

And again, you really have to stop applying terms to the other side that they do not claim or use. Science does not claim to prove things. Proof is the stuff of abstract constructs. Science just increases our understanding of things. It may not be able to prove what is true but it can demonstrate what is false. And thus like a sculptur we begin to see truth revealed as untruth is struck away.

[papau]

227. Truly only in math can there be proof - but science will - or will not -is

an obvious binary decision as to will- or will not - where science will is belief/faith. To pretend otherwise is indeed what some on this thread attempt.

I like your sculpture concept - While we do indeed see more of the form that is intended (we begin to see truth revealed as untruth is struck away) as chips fall away, we always find we did not know the final form - or indeed if the final form could be made - until the end.

A sculptor may start carving a rock into a Klein bottle - but at some point the fellow will realize you can not get to there from here.

There are questions that can not be answered by science - to say otherwise is to express faith in that which is unlikely and which can not be proved or assumed.

I am afraid the terms that I apply to an observation of the obvious are standard terms. If the "other side" does not claim or use such terms it affects nothing - it only exposes their intellectual dishonesty.

[Az]

229. May not will

There is no presumption that science will answer everything. There is merely not the presumption that it cannot answer everything.

As to carving a klein bottle into a rock you presume our only tools are chisel and hammer. We are quite capable of sculpting inside objects these days with lasers and other devices. I will not presume that we cannot carve a klein bottle from a stone.

[papau]

230. Real world is 3 dim-but Klien is a 2 dimension bottle-not going to happen

Kline (or Klien) Bottle - A one sided bottle -a zero-volume bottle - a one-sided surface -Cannot be embedded in 3−d without self intersection

A Klien bottle is not a hyperdimensional object, it is a bidimensional object. A Klien bottle is a one-sided topological surface having no inside or outside, whose measurements include only length and breadth (I.E. surface area) but not thickness/height. It is an analog of a Moebius strip, which itself is a bidimensional object posessed only of length and breadth, and is formed by taking a rectangle and holding one end fixed, rotating the opposite end through 180 degrees, and joining it to the first end. Similarly, a Klein bottle is formed by passing the narrow end of a tapered tube through the side of the tube and flaring this end out to join the other end. In Real Space (I.E. our world) the tapered end passes through the side of the bottle. An actual Klien bottle, if it existed, would have no pierced side because it would have no three-dimensional existence - it would only have two dimensions of existence which define it's surface area.

In short, a Klien Bottle is not a hyperdimensional object, it is a
bidimensional object - a tube with a twist that joins back upon
itself, much like a Mobius strip is a rectangle with a twist that
joins back upon itself.


pretend variations that have been built
http://www.kleinbottle.com/index.htm


"There is merely not the presumption that it cannot answer everything." - I like the wording - fits the logic of our atheist discussion - your side of course. Perhaps you guessed I disagree?

[Az]

253. Of course

You take it on faith. Which is of course the philosophical equivalent of simply insisting you are right and nothing is going to change your mind. So the question becomes who is close minded and who is open minded.

[papau]

303. True - but a bitter way to characterize both sides of this discussion

:-)

[BurtWorm]

153. Suppose there is no god right now, and that your belief in him is illusion

It's possible, isn't it? If the source of your moral authority is an illusion--hypothetically speaking--then why aren't you engaging in the immoral, antisocial acts you seem to think humans would naturally degenerate to if there were no God?

[papau]

176. smile - it feels good to be correct!--hypothetically speaking, of

course.

[BurtWorm]

194. I'm not following you.

Correct about what? About the necessity of God to morality? Why are atheists by and large moral, then? Is God tricking us somehow? Is our moral capacity working on behalf of God without our even being aware of it, do you think? (I obviously don't think that.)

[papau]

205. Is moral the opposite of allowing oneself to be duped? What is

more capacity and should it get in the way of greed -or even status

Indeed should we demand status for our having the "correct" opinion.

Isn't this thread all about I am correct and you are wrong and I am the one using scientific logic and am therefore superior as I reject belief and faith, although the atheist requires both to be so certain that there is no God.

[Az]

210. Where are you getting this presumption from

I see no atheist here proclaiming there is no god. I see only atheists proclaiming that they don't happen to believe in god and that until one is presented effectively they will continue muddling on in this world with a variety of measures to make sense of what they can.

Are you trying to bait an atheist into proclaiming something undefendable? That does not seem to comform to a civil reason for conversing and in fact seems particularly passive aggressive. Please tell me I am mistaken.

[papau]

306. You are mistaken - but then we all are most of the time :-)Good to see

that you are not in my face telling me that logic should make me agree with you that my God does not exist.

[BurtWorm]

221. No, this thread is about why atheists' respect for theism goes only so far

Here's a very good example of where the difficulties between the two sides arise.


My point of view (I won't say all atheists think this way, though many probably do), that morality is possible without God, doesn't leave theists out in the cold. I presume you're all human and capable of constructing or abiding by an ethical system referent to life on this planet only, no matter where you believe it comes from ultimately. Ethics and morals are social, I think. Association is built into our genes. If we aren't moral--you're quite right about this, anyway--we cease to function as a species.

It seems to me that your point of view, that morality is *impossible* without God, essentially leaves atheists out in the cold. There's no chance of meeting on common ground there, for obvious reasons, is there? (I'm really curious about your answer to this.)

[papau]

329. Now I have been careful to not say that morality is impossible w/o god

Atheists are therefore not "out in the cold" - at least in my world.

[BurtWorm]

340. I thought you agreed with txsleftist when he said

"If there is no higher power to answer to, other than myself, why should I respect you at all, other than as a potential ally or victim?"

Isn't this a claim that humans need a higher power in order not to kill each other? Do you agree with that? I don't. I think whether or not there's a higher power is utterly irrelevant to whether or not we kill each other.

[papau]

345. It reads like a request by txsleftist for you to explain the boundaries

that you have in place and how you decided to accept those boundaries.

I have had the ethics courses - and am fond of many atheists - including the ones I meet at Unitarian Churches on some Sundays when I have decided to attend - and do not question the existence of morality that is developed without reference to God.

[BurtWorm]

362. Maybe you should read post #84 again.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=29436&mesg_id=29566

That post was in response to a question from cosmik debris about respect for racists.

For some reason, txsleftist replied in a way to suggest he seems to think if there were no god he'd go on a rampage because there'd be no higher moral authority to punish him for it.

But that's not what you think?

[papau]

394. Nope - it is not what I think- indeed I read txsleftist as saying religion

was a rock you anchor ethics to - and that the atheist had no such rock - so how is ethics without God to be anchored?



So I read the post as a request for education - not a denial that there could atheist ethics.

[BurtWorm]

405. It seemed to me that he was suggesting religionless ethics had to be

inhuman/inhumane. You disagree that godless ethics have to be inhuman/e? So why do you question how ethics without God is to be anchored? It's anchored as all other ethics systems (including "religious" ones) are anchored--through convention.

[beam me up scottie]

378. But you did say that you were morally superior to me.

It didn't feel very warm and fuzzy to me.

[txaslftist]

204. The two large-scale governmental systems...

...that had as a tenet the positive belief in the non-existence of God were Nazism and Soviet Communism. Show me a society that does not allow the free exercise of religion and I will show you immoral, antisocial acts. I will show you a society that degenerates.

Of course, I didn't actually personally see any atrocities committed by Stalin and Hitler, so I can't say its been conclusively proven they occurred. I cannot say affirmatively that it was positive atheism that caused them, but certainly there was an ethical breakdown there.

OTOH, men engage in immoral, antisocial acts all the time, whether they are persons of faith or not. And if there is no God, then how can I commit immoral acts? You must mean unethical, as in the absence of divinity, there is no morality.

[Az]

206. You stepped in it

Nazism is not predicated on an atheistic philosophy. Prepare to hear many quotes and see many pictures tying Nazism to theism.

As to Soviet Communism yes, it was atheistic. But its actions were not predicated in the name of atheism. Rather it had a dogma that it preached as absolute and that was the justification for its actions.

As to how can you commit an immoral act? You are part of society. Morality is derived from the values of that society and the individuals that comprise it. Is there an absolute morality? No. Is there a social construct of morality? Yes.

[BurtWorm]

207. Nazism was deeply rooted in Christian anti-Semitism.

Hitler was a devout Catholic (by his standards). It's just wrong to pretend atheism had anything to do with it. Unfortunately for you, that means your basic argument that only nominally atheistic societies morally break down logically breaks down. Nazism may have been only nominally Christian by a liberal Christian's standards, but it was not atheistic, if you want to be true to history.

[Dorian Gray]

272. Hitler and Catholicism.

It's true that he was baptised. But devout? No.

Hitler was a difficult man to figure out. His "religion" was really National Socialism. He took a mish-mash of theologies and idealogies from all different philosohphies. Some athiest, some Christian/Catholic, some paganist, some human secularist, some occult. He made up his own cult of personality.

I would never hold him up as a symbol of athiesm, and I would hope that you wouldn't hold him up as a symbol of Catholicism. (As he did reject Roman Catholicism.) He did not have a Catholic funeral. He did not continue to go to church. He was not a devout Catholic after his childhood.

[BurtWorm]

274. Fair enough to say he wasn't devout.

But he was Catholic, and he was Christian. Nazism wouldn't have existed without an ancient history of Christian anti-Semitism to support it.

[Dorian Gray]

277. I don't deny the presence

of Christianity in his life.

I just wanted to point out that Hitler was a monster, and holding him up as an example for any group of people is ridiculous!

For the record, I believe that any person (regardless of their philosophy or theology) can be a moral or good person. I am not of the belief that an Athiest is prone to no moral standards. I think that as a human community, we have morality sort of ingrained into our psyche.

There may be variances in other cultures or religions. But, the primary "evils" or "wrongs" are true in most faiths/non-faiths. (Meaning murder, stealing, etc.)

[BurtWorm]

279. Of course! (But that doesn't stop some Christians from pointing to him

and Stalin as exemplary atheists. :eyes: )

[Az]

275. Each person is their own individual

The things a group of believers can represent is an entirely different thing.

Hitler was a theist. But the set called theists is quite large. He was in no way representitive of all theists.

[beam me up scottie]

276. Interesting site on Hitler's christianity:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/Hitler1.htm

To deny the influence of Christianity on Hitler and its role in World War II, means that you must ignore history and forever bar yourself from understanding the source of German anti-Semitism and how the WWII atrocities occurred.

Check out the photo section, it will chill your blood when you see the similarities between him and the "leader of the free world" in the Oval Office.

[Skinner]

108. I would argue that you have no obligation to respect racists...

...if you do not desire respect in return from racists. My guess is that you do not desire respect from racists, and rightly so, therefore you are not obligated to respect them.

If you do not desire respect from believers generally, then you are not obligated to respect them. (Standard disclaimer: I'm talking about "in the real world." Here on DU we have rules.)

But if you desire respect from some believers (and I have no way of knowing if you do), then I think you would be wise to show respect toward those believers. That seems like common sense.

[shrike]

119. Sounds good to me, Skinner

No suck-up intended.

[arwalden]

185. That Was Splendid.

:thumbsup:

[papau]

193. Amen :-)

:-)

[txaslftist]

209. Heh.

[beam me up scottie]

211. Indeed.

Said the Uppity Atheist from her evil lair...

[papau]

215. Have you bought a round yet?

It is not an ethics question - I am just cheap!

:toast:

:-)

[beam me up scottie]

218. Put it on my tab.

I'll just get a third job...

:toast:

[Zhade]

226. Indeed. I have to respect people's right to believe what they will.

I have zero obligation to respect the beliefs they may hold.

I don't have to respect the belief that slavery is okay, or that women are subject to their husbands, or the loony nonsense that the world was literally created in six days.

I will never attack a believer for being a believer, but their beliefs are open to critique and argument. Virgin births and resurrections of the dead get no more pass from me, logic and truth-wise, than alleged Iraqi WMD claims.

[papau]

231. True - but one also respects that the belief is truly held - and drops the

"you are a lesser person, less logical person, less ethical person" attitude towards the person on the other side as you discuss the belief.

I hope the "respect people's right to believe what they will", with no "attitude", is what we have here at DU.

[Zhade]

234. I can respect that a belief is deeply-held...

...while also being honest with my own feelings on the credibility of the belief.

In my mind, there is no "lesser person" or "less ethical" aspect when it comes to believers. They are human, as am I, and often believers adopt or continue in a belief system out of a genuine desire to be more ethical than they were before.

We part ways on the question of "less logical", because to me a person who is logical and informed that there is little to no independent verifiable evidence of a certain myth, and still insists that myth is true despite the lack of evidence, is not acting on logic but on faith. Less logic is involved at that point, and thus believers are, while in that mindset, less logical than those who do not assume unproven myths to be historically factual.

That does not mean believers are never logical. They usually are quite logical in most aspects of their daily life. But when belief in myths as literal historical acts is involved, and things without evidence for their reality are accepted as a given, believers let faith and not logic carry the day.

[arwalden]

238. By Taking "Offense" At One Of The Core Issues...

... many believers are trying to limit the scope of the argument and even the precision of the language that's used by nonbelievers. They seem to be wanting an uneven playing field.

[Zhade]

240. I don't necessarily think it's intentional, though.

I think it's instinctual defense of their deeply-held beliefs.

(That's not intended to offend anyone, btw.)

[beam me up scottie]

241. Oh, I think it is.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=29397&mesg_id=29901

[papau]

255. It is that who gets to frame the debate and level playing field discussion

Plus the meaning of English words - geting the atheist to admit to say there is no God requires faith is nigh impossible since they will defy logic and English so as to not say it.

And then there is the flip from the atheist saying "all we are about is a non-belief in your God", to the atheist saying "there is no God" - and the flip back when you point out the faith component in the latter.

An interesting denial of English word meaning and the concepts of logic when applied to metaphysics - but I woould not at this time conclude atheism equals a mental desease - it is just one more faith.

[beam me up scottie]

262. We've provided you with the correct definition, it is not our fault

if you are unable to understand the difference.

Hee hee, the idea that someone who uses a woo woo definition of "evidence" and then attempts to claim superior language skills is laughable.

[BurtWorm]

265. It does take faith to claim there is no god.

But that's not what sensible atheists claim for their own beliefs.

It's interesting to me that Christians, who put so much faith in the Word of the Bible, seem similarly enchanted by the Word of Webster. Maybe it would help you understand our position if you realise that atheists are about what materially and empirically *is,* and not so much about what any book says. The book, we realize, is prone to error and can only say so much about the complexity outside it.

[arwalden]

242. Perhaps So... For Some. -- But If I Don't Hold Those Beliefs...

... then why should I agree to validate their beliefs (or claims of persecution) by using imprecise language? Why should I defer to their vanity demands? Intentional or not... that's the effect.

Why are politicians and people in authority so more willing to coddle and appease these vanity demands? Why do they get to choose which words can be used? Why do they get to frame the debate?

[beam me up scottie]

243. I spent a good part of this thread

trying to figure that out.

All I got was a headache.

[arwalden]

245. Just Keep This In Mind...

... you were trying to make sense out of words that were written by people who think atheism is a religion. These are the same folks who argue that not believing in the existence of deities or magic is the same as having "faith"... and that not believing is a itself a belief-system, and atheists are only "rejecting" god because they are angry at him for some reason. :eyes:

"I believe in God because the bible tells me so. I believe the bible because it was written by God." (repeat until you fall asleep)

I see a pattern. In most all cases, whenever the believers appeal to or petition anyone in a position of authority, the decisions and the advantage is usually given to the believers and the handicap is forced on the nonbelievers.

It gives me a headache too. (But I've ceased being surprised.)

[beam me up scottie]

246. Thanks.

I finally figured that out.

I put Reasonable Atheist out to pasture and let Uppity Atheist out of the cage.

They should have read the book...

[papau]

252. atheism is a religion? - no - but atheism requires faith in something

that can not be proved.

The distinction between "I don't believe in God" and God does not exist seems to come and go as "God does not exist" is affirmed as needed.

[Az]

254. You really have to stop putting words in our mouths

Its getting tiresome. I have faith in lots of things. My friends. My family. I even have faith that George and company will try to screw us over. But amongst the things I have no faith in is the notion of a god existing. I have none. I don't believe in god.

There are specific claims of god that I find relatively easy to refute. Perhaps this is where your confusion comes in. God in this society is not simply one claim. It is not the equivalent of saying I do not believe that Francis Ferdinand Farquot does not exist. That would be a specific individual (I seriosly hope he doesn't exist with a name like that).

God in our society has many different claims. Atheism encompasses all of them. But towards each one we can have different reasons for not believing. Some more concrete than others.

Now just stop putting words in our mouth and insisting that we have faith that god does not exist. You are just making yourself look silly.

[papau]

256. To deny that you have faith in God not existing - from my side - makes

you look silly when you say you are an atheist, and not an agnostic.

But then we all have our silly moments!

:toast:

:-)

[Az]

269. Are you deliberately not listening to the words we are saying?

As far as I can tell we are being quite clear and our position seems to be quite consistant. You seem to be holding to a definition that we reject in part because it was foisted on us by people that share your view. I am hoping that you are made of better stuff than those who insist that we damn ourselves by deliberately choosing to deny god.

[beam me up scottie]

263. Define your god.

You need to provide an acceptable definition of your deity and proof of its existence in order for us to reject it.

If you are unable to do that, your argument is invalid.

[papau]

286. Why is it hard to understand that the metaphysical rules of proof are

not the scientific ones.

Why is the concept of faith hard to understand?

Why is the fact that attempts to define God on the scientific playing field will not be accepted as rational by any theist?

Why is it hard to understand that if we are not on a scientific playing field (and metaphysics is not scientific by definition), not having to prove a negative is just a BULL SHIT attempt at trying to put us back on that scientific playing field.

Why is it hard to understand that logic says that if you believe in something but have no scientific proof others are free to say you have faith.

Why is it then hard to accept that atheists are part of the people of faith?

[beam me up scottie]

315. You really don't get it, do you?

For the last time:

I am not questioning your belief in deities.

I don't care which ones you choose to worship and how.

What I do care about is your lack of respect for me and my fellow atheists.

You are obviously unable or unwilling to show us the respect we have shown you.

None of us has told you your particular god thing doesn't exist.

We QUESTION its existence and your credibility when you say you can prove it and don't.

There is no such thing as "metaphysical proof".

It either exists or it doesn't.

You have demanded that atheists admit they reject your invisible "metaphysical" being, but yet you cannot define what it is we are supposed to be rejecting.


If you are unable to define or prove what "it" is, how can you tell others that they reject it?


I am still waiting for you to define and provide proof of your god.


When you can provide it, the existence of your god and your credibility for insisting we know of and reject it, will no longer be suspect.

[BurtWorm]

328. Amen, sister!

:applause:

[papau]

342. I do not say I can prove it -I talk about faith - and you say I lack proof

talk about lacking credibility - mis-representing what has been asserted by each side is not a good start at credibility attainment.

[Az]

344. Why do you talk to us about faith

Is it not clear that no matter how hard you believe in god it makes no impact on our beliefs? You may as well run around in front of us holding your breath. At least then when we try to help you after you fall down we will have some sort of meaningful interaction.

We get it. You have faith in god. If that is all you have to say then let it go.

[papau]

352. I will let it go the moment you stop acting like not having faith is the

morally or logically superior position - indeed better would be your opening your eyes and seeing that there is faith involved in saying there is no God, or in your noting that there is no evidence only because you reject the Bible and early Christain texts as being proof of anything.

And even better would be your using agnostic as the only description of the modern "atheist" as presented on the DU board.

but I fear I hope for too much.

[Az]

364. Good grief

Stop putting words in our mouths.

We do not claim to be morally superior.

It is your claim alone that we have faith there is no god. We have steadfastly maintained that we simply do not believe in god or gods.

We have real issues with the evidence in the bible. Your dismissal of our concerns is just further evidence of your own particularl prejudice.

I hate to say this but it really seems to me you have a serious hatred towards atheists. You consistantly try to force us into a definition of your own design. And then when you establish that strawman you beat it silly with a vehemance indicitive of your emotional state.

We will not accept your definition of us. So just stop it. It is hateful and malicious. If you continue to insist on it I will call you the bigot you seem to be.

[papau]

400. If you - speaking for all atheiest - will not accept my God , can I call

you the bigot you seem to be.

Perhaps we should just "stop it as this is getting, for some, hateful and malicious", or so they say.

[Az]

325. The concept of faith is not hard to understand

But it is useless in this sort of dialog. I have faith that there is a smurf hiding in the universe somewhere. Pretty much ends the conversation if I don't produce some reason why I believe this. The fact that I have faith in it is meaningless to those that do not share this belief.

As to the notion of atheists having faith, sure. In lots of things. But the absense of belief is not faith. You can scream it till you are blue in the face (I FOUND THE SMURF!!!) but its not going to make it true. And this is the most disengenuous part of your argument.

Actually this goes right back to the reason why atheists have been defined by theists as denying the existance of god. Believers are so convinced of their position that they insist that those that do not agree with them must be defying reality. Sorry to disappoint. I have no grudge against god. I have no anger issues with god. I have no faith that there are no gods. I simply do not believe there are gods. Now tell me I am lying.

[papau]

354. absense of belief is faith if you can not provide proof of your assertion

that there is no God.

Absense of belief is not faith if all you are saying is that you do not believe in my God.

Not hard to understand, eh?

[BurtWorm]

386. Are you actually asserting that whether or not your God is God

there must necessarily be a God?

[papau]

398. Sorry I am a one God'er happy with many paths and many names

there is therefore no "or not"

[BurtWorm]

402. Then I really don't understand why you make this distinction:

<<absense of belief is faith if you can not provide proof of your assertion that there is no God.

<<Absense of belief is not faith if all you are saying is that you do not believe in my God.>>

By "my God" are you talking about "your" (papau's) God? What's the difference between disbelief in "your God" and disbelief in "God?" I really don't get that unless you're suggesting that there must be a God but it isn't necessarily the one you're worshiping.

[papau]

406. It is as you note a distinction about choice of words and paths - not

concepts. You reject God by the name I use, then feel free to await an insight into the correct name to use. If you are open to a God possibility but have not seen any one you like - and can live with no "rational" way to explain creation without god - then in my world you are agnostic - and on DU you are new atheist.

In my world we all worship the same God - names of god and paths may be different.

It is the atheist that - I thought - was absolute about "no god" in their life because - and then list reasons.

[Az]

411. Is that a crack I see in his wall?

Finally something suggesting he has been listening.

Papau, the history of the debate about god has gone down many paths. While under control of the Church western society was dominated, and I mean dominated, by a singular claim for god. During that time an atheist typically did not have to contend with a multiplicity of claims for god. Thus when the singular god offered before them for consideration did not rise to their evidentiary requirements or was refuted by evidence they did have they were right in saying they reject god.

But times change. The continued splintering of ideas of belief has presented us modern atheists with a completely different array of issues. We cannot say there is no god and be honest. Simply because a multiplicity of claims have arisen in an attempt to continue to perpetuate the notion of god.

To very specific claims of god we remain convinced of their nonexistance and will even state that such a god does not exist. But the simple vastness of arguments offered and some of their tenuous claims makes it impossible for us to simlpy state there is no god.

At one time it would have been appropriate to refer to atheists as people that reject god. But once you change the number and nature of the claims for god the definition of the word atheist changes as well.

[papau]

414. Soory - but I suggest that reasoning - moving atheist to agnostic-

is a con.

You either say there is no God in your world, or you do not know if there is a God in your world -

atheist or agnostic

the rest is bull

but for 400 plus posts I have tried to play your silly word game - it is tiresome.

Feel logical anf be well

till later - much later

[BurtWorm]

424. It's been explained for you over and over why it isn't a con

and for some reason you're not letting it in. I'm not clear on why this (incorrect) distinction is so important to you. Is it because you think one person's lack of belief is inherently hostile to others' belief? Is it because you think it's a mortal sin not to believe?

Why is it so difficult to understand that atheism is a simple lack of belief, as simple as lack of belief in anything requiring belief? Do you believe everything you're told? If you disbelieve in something someone tells you, is faith anywhere involved in your disbelief? Do you have to have faith to disbelieve everything? I don't think so. So why to disbelieve in God?

[BurtWorm]

412. Many atheists on DU have been telling you that atheism is not absolute.

I can see why, if, in your world, "we all worship the same God," you have such a hard time with the idea that some people just plain don't worship any God. To you that must seem like an affront of some kind to everyone else in the world. Is that right?

[papau]

415. Only when your act impacts on me do I care what you believe in - but

when an atheist post hateful. smug, bull shit illogical posts dumping on believers on DU and elsewhere -

well I guess affront is as good a word as any.

[Az]

417. Then call it for what it is

This dance of yours does nothing but exasterbate the problem. If you have issues with how specific atheists represent themself or assail others take it up with them. But you have become the thing you hate by attacking all atheists as you do.

[papau]

421. You are correct - sorry. Skinner's calls for respect are ignored and

my street fighter (I am very blue collar still despite the education) comes out -

But again you are correct.

I need to save my responses to atheist posts to a time when I am fresh and feel like keeping each poster separate in my mind.

But the problem with that of course is for some in this debate it is a game to get the largest number of hateful posts on DU with a minimum number of other side responses.

This thread has actually been one of the more polite ones, with less "gotcha" and "my feelings are hurt" and you are "illogical" posts than I would have expected based on past performances.

But again you are correct - Serious questions such as Burtworm and yourself and others occasionally ask deserve individualized responses where I find out if you are not agreeing with the atheist posts to that point. I do respond to the thread as a whole as I respond to the specific points in a given post.

till the next thread.

[BurtWorm]

266. Papau, you're refusing to hear what the atheists in this thread are saying

and thus you are basically arguing with yourself.

"I don't believe in God" no more means "God does not exist" (or even, "I do believe God does not exist") than "I don't believe Jesus was the son of God" means "I do believe Jesus did not exist." (For the record, though, I personally DO believe Jesus did not exist, but a lot of atheists would argue--and have argued--passionately with me about that.)

Atheism, for atheists, is about what we believe, not about what we know. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

[papau]

282. If we are saying I do not believe in your God - you are correct - but

you are not hearing what you are saying as you mock belief in God - the flying spaghetti monster is an assertion that belief must be ridiculed

why

because it is not logical

why

because there is no god

prove it

I do not have to prove it - I believe it on faith - whoops - not faith- it is just a belief - whoops - it is not a religion, so perhaps belief is the wrong word.

repeat, rinse, and repeat


Then you say that "I don't believe in God" no more means "God does not exist" (or even, "I do believe God does not exist")

than "I don't believe Jesus was the son of God" means "I do believe Jesus did not exist."

thereby explaining your belief system rules and boundarys.

OK - for the record atheist do not say there is no god. Got it.

[arwalden]

285. A Fascinating Peek Inside Your Head.

Thanks.

[beam me up scottie]

288. Well,

I could have done without it.

:crazy:

[papau]

348. I am crushed - even sad....

:-(

[beam me up scottie]

370. What did I say about passive aggressive behavior?

I stopped using the "cute" act and Shirley Temple pout after my mother told me to knock it off when I was six.

[papau]

372. passive aggressive was something your mother did not like?

I share her opinion that passive aggressive is not the best of behaviors - but I fail to see how it applies to only one side in this thread.

[beam me up scottie]

376. You mean the side that says they love other posters?

Why would it apply to those of us that don't exhibit this behavior in this thread?

[papau]

379. Sorry but I do love other posters - as is commanded for me to do

by my religion.

Guess that is icky to the atheist crowd.

[beam me up scottie]

388. You said you hoped Arwalden still loved you.

That's pretty damn icky as well as being passive aggressive.
The two are not mutually exclusive.

[papau]

401. Then I confess to passive aggressive and to being icky in your and his

eyes.

That was not my intention.

[papau]

289. And thank you - I am sure you found my head as nuts as I found yours

but I hope we still love one another!

[arwalden]

294. That Is Untrue.

<< "And thank you - I am sure you found my head as nuts as I found yours" Posted by papau >>

I said it was fascinating. It's interesting to see how your thought process works.

I DID *NOT* SAY THAT I THOUGHT YOU WERE NUTS!!



<< but I hope we still love one another! >>

WTF?! What a creepy thing to say. -- Passive-aggressive gestures like that one are unwelcome and inappropriate.

[papau]

297. arwalden - I do not think we are on the same page - and implications

that are obvious to me seem to be less obvious to you.

Sorry if "love one another" creeps you out - I did not know the boundaries that exist for the DU atheist with regard to songs of the 60's.

[arwalden]

309. That's Not Exactly What You Said...

<< Sorry if "love one another" creeps you out >>

That's no apology. I doubt your sincerity. (Those are weasel-words. When someone says "I'm sorry you were offended" it's much different than saying "I'm sorry for offending".)

The fact of the matter is this: you didn't say simply "love one another". What you actually said was:

<< but I hope we still love one another! >>

How absurd and arrogant for anyone to think that I ever loved you in the first place, or that I'd "still" love you now.

Rest assured that "love" is not a word that I'd use to describe any personal feelings I have about you. That's a word that I don't bandy about as lightly as you do.

<< I did not know the boundaries that exist for the DU atheist with regard to songs of the 60's. >>

Really? You had no idea, huh? :eyes: For the record, you should probably be made aware that creepy passive-aggressive behavior is inappropriate with anyone... not just atheists.

You should also know that your attempts to dismiss your inappropriate comments as being merely some "song of the 60's" are unconvincing, and it only serves to convince me that you ARE indeed aware of what you were doing.

[papau]

339. Humans are called to love one another - the Greeks have 30 words for each

type of "loving feeling"

If You are determined to be offended - be my guest and use what ever I have said or you think I have said as an excuse.

[arwalden]

360. As I Suggested To You Earlier... The More You Try To Split Hairs

the more convinced I am that you knew exactly what you were doing.

<< "Humans are called to love one another >>

I see no need to cheapen the word and the emotion the way that you desire to do when you bandy it about so freely.

<< - the Greeks have 30 words for each" Posted by papau type of "loving feeling" >>

Wow... if that had anything to do with the subject, perhaps it would be an interesting factoid.


<< If You are determined to be offended - be my guest and use what ever I have said or you think I have said as an excuse. >>

And with that declaration of yours, you've reinforced what I previously said. It's easy to see that my other observation was true. (That being, of course, the insincerity of your previous "apology" in the form of "I'm sorry YOU were offended" rather than "I'm sorry for my offensive words".)

[Name removed]

381. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[arwalden]

385. Well, Papau...

<<"Which nuanced love are you discussing - and is it the one I am using?" Posted by papau >>

... Your meaning escapes me.

<< But I give you too much credit for being able to think. >>

Ah... thanks. Really nice.

<< Sorry - won't happen again >>

I do not believe you.

<< and I am sorry that you use "taking offense" as a debating tool. >>

You don't offend me. But if DU rules are to be enforced, then they should be applied equally and enforced equally on everyone.

[beam me up scottie]

337. Passive aggressive behavior is

not as effective on the internet, papau.

It is, however, much more obvious.

[papau]

355. Passive aggressive? I believe the term you are looking for is "projection"

:toast:

:-)

[beam me up scottie]

369. Sorry, I'm not the one telling posters I love them.

That would be you.

[BurtWorm]

292. Prove there's no Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I can't prove that either. :shrug:

[papau]

299. Welcome to metaphysics!

:toast:

:-)

[BurtWorm]

304. If that's metaphysics, then I'm glad I don't live there.

;)

[papau]

251. Why do they get to frame the debate? - now that is a line both sides use

:-)

[arwalden]

257. That's Incorrect. Only The Theists Want To Control The Use Of Language...

out of a desire to be "personally" respected, or to have deference shown to, and respects paid to, their deity. Indeed they want to frame (or restrict) the debate.

It is UNTRUE to make the same claim about atheists. Atheists want no such restrictions. Atheists are not making silly VANITY demands. Atheists do not want to "frame" the debate, atheists want to FREE and open-up the debate. Atheists want to have the latitude to use precise language and ask difficult, thoughtful, and intelligent questions.

Such uncomfortable things are the bane of existence for theists. Lacking any rational response to the difficult questions and observations, it's little wonder that their alternate response would take "offense" at being "disrespected". In doing so, they accomplish three things. 1) They deflect attention from their own inability to intelligently respond, explain, or answer the question or observation being made by the atheist; 2) they try to score points by portraying themselves as poor persecuted victims; and 3) in both real-life and moderated discussion forums--laws, policies, and rules are tweaked in favor of the theists.

[papau]

259. Silly - if you don't want to control the use of lanuage what are we

discussing?

[arwalden]

261. Silly, Yourself. -- I Do NOT Want The Language To Be Controlled.

:eyes: It is the theists who are demanding that everyone call black white to satisfy their own vanities and insecurities and inability to respond to difficult questions.

Case in point: your last response. Any reasonable person could read my previous couple of posts and could easily determine that I *oppose* vanity restrictions on the use of language. My words have been direct and to the point. I was not vague. I did not type complex or confusing sentences. -- Nevertheless, despite all the evidence that I oppose such vanity restrictions, you say that I *want* restrictions.

That's astounding. Sorry, but black is not white simply because you demand that it be so.

[papau]

264. back at you with the same comment - indeed I wonder what is confusing

about:

one can not prove there is no God

If you assert something you can not prove it is an act of faith, of belief

Atheist assert there is no God

Atheist act on faith/belief.

QED

Of course the we just do not believe in your God is phase two - with we have not found a God to believe in - followed

and here is the fun logic

by saying again there is no God

WHATEVER BOUNDARY SYSTEM YOU HAVE I AM SURE IS FINE - but just don't claim English words change their meaning because you deem them to have a theist definition when all you are complaining about is the standard logic being applied to your statements - and your not liking where that logic takes you.

[arwalden]

267. Oh, Good Grief.

<< "back at you with the same comment - >>

Back at me? What are you talking about? What comment? Your words make no sense.


<< indeed I wonder what is confusing" Posted by papau about:>>
<< one can not prove there is no God >>

This again? The one making the claim that something exists always has the burden of proof.


<< If you assert something you can not prove it is an act of faith, of belief >>

I've asserted nothing. I've nothing to prove. It's not my obligation to prove anything.


<< Atheist assert there is no God >>

He do? (And we're back at the starting point again.)


<< Atheist act on faith/belief. QED >>

We does? (Whee! Here we go again! Circle without end.)


<< Of course the we just do not believe in your God is phase two - with we have not found a God to believe in - followed >>

I'm afraid that combination of words just doesn't make any sense to me.

<< and here is the fun logic >>

Fun for you?


<< by saying again there is no God >>

And no coherent sentences.


<< WHATEVER BOUNDARY SYSTEM YOU HAVE I AM SURE IS FINE - but just don't claim English words change their meaning because you deem them to have a theist definition when all you are complaining about is the standard logic being applied to your statements - and your not liking where that logic takes you. >>

I do not know what on Earth you are going-on about. Are you responding to someone else? Did you mean to reply to another post? :shrug:

Anyone who thinks that "all (I am) complaining about is the standard logic being applied to (my) statements" certainly must lack basic reading and comprehension skills, or hasn't been paying close enough attention. (Or just enjoys playing little vanity word games.)

Any reasonable person can look back and read my posts to determine their meaning. That same reasonable person can easily see the absurdity of your analysis.

Black is not white.

[papau]

270. You have no burden of proof and reasonable people agree with you = yep

whatever floats your boat.

I do love assertions presented as agreed facts.

Now we could rant about the other's closed mind and incoherent posts - but We have already done that, haven't we?

Have a nice day.

:toast:

:-)

[arwalden]

280. That Is Untrue.

I have not accused you or anyone of having a "closed-mind".

What I have said is that theists want to limit the scope and language of the debate... they want to FRAME it. Nontheists do not want these limitations. -- In response, you make absurd statements about my wanting to "frame" the debate with these limitations.

Such silly diversions and absurd contradictions come from a position of weakness. It's nothing but vanity... the equivalent of saying that black is white.

Further... if anyone expects to engage others in an intellectual conversation and exchange... then there is a minimum grammatical standard that the posts must reach. I know that you can speak and type coherent messages... I've seen them before. But clearly, in your haste (eagerness?, anger?) to respond to me, I'm afraid that some of your messages don't quite reach the minimal standards. I do try to understand your words, and sometimes I can figure out what you might have meant... but it's a challenge, and a distraction.

I try to organize my thoughts and type them out in a logical order, using reasonably good grammar and sentence structure. It also helps me to spell-check and proof-read my posts before clicking the submit button. I try not to let other arguments with other people clutter my thoughts and I try to stick to the subject. I don't accuse people of saying things they haven't said.

<< "You have no burden of proof and reasonable people agree with you = yep" Posted by papau whatever floats your boat. >>

It's almost as though I've stepped into a Monty Python sketch.

<< I do love assertions presented as agreed facts. >>

It's just astounding how so many theists thing that a never-ending series of contradictions are a substitute for rational and logical thinking.

<< Now we could rant about the other's closed mind and incoherent posts - but We have already done that, haven't we? >>

We? What "we" are you referring to? Are you thinking of someone else? I don't recall any such "rant".

[papau]

293. A debate without scope or limit is what you want - and you are focused

to the immediate post rather than to the theme of the thread - good for you.

If you are looking for a validation as a clear thinker who is reponding to the unclear postings at DU, feel free to claim it.

I am curious about a "minimum grammatical standard" - but I'll leave that for a later post - indead some other thread.

[arwalden]

300. Actually...

<< A debate without scope or limit is what you want - and you are focused Edited on Thu Oct-13-05 11:46 AM by papau to the immediate post rather than to the theme of the thread - good for you.>>

... it's not about me.

<< If you are looking for a validation as a clear thinker who is reponding to the unclear postings at DU, feel free to claim it. >>

That makes no sense. Who are you "reponding" to?

Again, I'm not the subject of this thread. I fail to understand your personal fascination with me.


<< I am curious about a "minimum grammatical standard" >>

Well, I consider that to be progress.


<< but I'll leave that for a later post - indead some other thread. >>

Yes... "indead" you'll just have to do that.

[papau]

305. If only I could say there has been progress shown in your posts - oh

well - at some point I am sure you will have a break though and admit that much - if not all - is about you.

Till Then - and in another thread

:toast:

:-)

[arwalden]

313. Your Message Makes No Sense At All.

What are you talking about? Try to focus your responses on the message and not the messenger.

[papau]

320. Ok - to recap - you are at the I don't know stage - formerly called Agnos

as to there being a God - but you assert you have not found scientific proof of a God,

On a scientific basis I can not "prove" the existence of God

On the metaphysical level I do not have to prove scientifically the existence of God.

The evidence that the atheist rejects in the scientific debate - the witness to miracles - are solid "evidence" to me - that the atheist rejects saying they are liars or confused - but in any case the atheist affirm that the witnesses to God and his acts are not speaking truth.

And your proof of that is not scientific - you have no proof these folks are liars - indeed you believe they are liars based on faith in something that taught you there is no GOD

but you do not admit your belief system is based on faith.

Did I miss anything?

[arwalden]

331. Have I Fallen Through A Rabbit Hole?

<< "Ok - to recap - you are at the I don't know stage - formerly called Agnos" Posted by papau as to there being a God - but you assert you have not found scientific proof of a God,>>

It must be important if you wrote it. But that just makes no sense. It sounds like you're just making it up as you go along.

<< On a scientific basis I can not "prove" the existence of God >>

Okay.

<< On the metaphysical level I do not have to prove scientifically the existence of God. >>

How convenient for you. Of course you don't.


<< The evidence that the atheist rejects in the scientific debate - the witness to miracles - are solid "evidence" to me >>

Okay, so you accept fiction as evidence. I understand! Gotcha!


<< - that the atheist rejects saying they are liars or confused - but in any case the atheist affirm that the witnesses to God and his acts are not speaking truth.>>

I do not believe fictional accounts simply because they are written down in a book.


<< And your proof of that is not scientific >>

I have nothing to prove. For the people who claim that the fictional writings are true, then the burden of proof is theirs and theirs alone.


<< - you have no proof these folks are liars >>

I've never said anyone was a liar. I said it was a work of fiction. The author's own personal belief in the truth of what he or she writes does not make it any LESS fiction.

In the end, it's not for me to prove one way or the other. That's not my burden.


<< - indeed you believe they are liars based on faith in something that taught you there is no GOD >>

What? :shrug: Are you still talking to me? Or was that meant for someone else?

<< but you do not admit your belief system is based on faith. >>

Well, actually, I do not have a "belief system" in the first place.


<< Did I miss anything? >>

Yes. A coherent message.

[papau]

359. I do not have to prove any thing and I am coherent - sounds like faith

but that is just my opinion.

[arwalden]

361. The Choice Is Yours.

<< "I do not have to prove any thing >>

Of course not. Nobody is forcing you to prove anything to anyone.

But making vanity demands, stomping your feet, name-calling, and pouting really doesn't accomplish much either. But it's your choice.


<< and I am coherent - sounds like faith" Posted by papau >>

If you say so. I'm not in any position to make such a determination about you. (Any person with reasonable reading and comprehension skills can see that I have said nothing about you personally.)

However, it's undeniable that many of your *posts* are not coherent.


<< but that is just my opinion. >>

Indeed it is... just that.

[papau]

373. Ah- then we have agreement that your opinion is just your opinion?

wonderful.

[arwalden]

384. Wow! Talk about your non sequitur! Good grief!

I realize that it can be confusing, but try to follow. When I quote YOUR text, I'll enclose it in brackets as I've done below.

<< "Ah- then we have agreement that your opinion is just your opinion?" Posted by papau wonderful. >>

We have not come to any such agreement on MY opinions. Did you mean to reply to someone else, because such a reply does not logically follow the anything that was written previously.

In fact... for the record... here's what was said previously.

YOU: << but that is just my opinion. >>
ME: Indeed it is... just that.

You commented that something was your opinion, and then I agreed. That really has nothing at all to do with you and I being in any sort of "agreement" about my opinions. It's not about me. Stop trying to make it about me.

[beam me up scottie]

271. Since you are obviously still confused, here's some more information.

Educate yourself.
You'll find it's not as painful as you've been told.

Atheism vs. Agnosticism
From Austin Cline
Guide to Atheism

Many people who adopt the label of agnostic reject the label of atheist — there is a common perception that agnosticism is a more 'reasonable" position while atheism is more "dogmatic," ultimately indistinguishable from theism except in the details. Is this a valid position to take?

Unfortunately, no — agnostics may sincerely believe it and theists may sincerely reinforce it, but it relies upon more than one misunderstanding about both atheism and agnosticism. These misunderstandings are only exacerbated by continual social pressure and prejudice against atheism and atheists. People who are unafraid of stating that they indeed do not believe in any gods are still despised in many places, whereas "agnostic" is perceived as more respectable.

Atheists are thought to be closed-minded because they deny the existence of gods, whereas agnostics appear to be open-minded because they do not know for sure.

This is a mistake because atheists do not necessarily deny any gods and may indeed be an atheist because they do not know for sure — in other words, they may be an agnostic as well.

Once it is understood that atheism is merely the absence of belief in any gods, it becomes evident that agnosticism is not, as many assume, a "third way" between atheism and theism. The presence of a belief in a god and the absence of a belief in a god exhaust all of the possibilities. Agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge — it was coined originally to describe the position of a person who could not claim to know for sure if any gods exist or not.

Thus, it is clear that agnosticism is compatible with both theism and atheism. A person can believe in a god (theism) without claiming to know for sure if that god exists; the result is agnostic theism. On the other hand, a person can disbelieve in gods (atheism) without claiming to know for sure that no gods can or do exist; the result is agnostic atheism.

It is also worth noting that there is a vicious double standard involved when theists claim that agnosticism is 'better" than atheism because it is less dogmatic. If atheists are closed-minded because they are not agnostic, then so are theists. On the other hand, if theism can be open-minded then so can atheism.

In the end, the fact of the matter is a person isn't faced with the necessity of only being either an atheist or an agnostic. Quite the contrary, not only can a person be both, but it is in fact common for people to be both agnostics and atheists. An agnostic atheist won’t claim to know for sure that nothing warranting the label "god" exists or that such cannot exist, but they also don’t actively believe that such an entity does indeed exist.

Let me know if you're still foggy about the concept.
:hi:



edit: html issues

[BurtWorm]

273. I wonder if papau is an agnostic theist and just wants company.

:think:

[beam me up scottie]

278. He is an atheist.

He doesn't believe in all of the gods, does he?
:evilgrin:

We just go one god further than all of these other atheists.

[BurtWorm]

281. I haven't actually heard him deny the existence of Odin, to be fair.

;)

[beam me up scottie]

284. Heh heh!

He's probably worried about that whole "Pascal's Wager" thingy.

One can't be too careful, you know...

:dilemma:

[BurtWorm]

287. "I'll just SAY I believe in Quetzalcoatl, just in case!"

:evilgrin:

[arwalden]

290. Yeah... Play It Safe. He Won't Know The Difference.

[beam me up scottie]

291. Gesundheit!

Allergic to pink unicorns ?

[papau]

295. Young lady - back in your room until you can speak without swears!

:-)

[papau]

296. How far apart are the agnostic theist and the agnostic atheist?

:toast:

:-)

If you are going to just play with the English that is put in front of you, put it back and we will save it for later.

:toast:

:-)

[BurtWorm]

298. They are this close:

Neither one is comfortable stating with certainty that there is a god, because both are more comfortable saying they don't know with certainty if there is or isn't one. The difference is that the agnostic theist believes there probably is one (or maybe wishes there were one?) and the agnostic atheist doesn't believe (or wish) that.

[papau]

301. I like that formation even if English tries to define the words so they

can not be combined.

Have a great day.

:toast:

:-)

[BurtWorm]

302. "English" doesn't define the words. English speakers do.

:toast:

[papau]

319. So if we are at the the I don't know stage - formerly called Agnostic -

why is my faith of interest?

On a scientific basis I can not "prove" the existence of God

On the metaphysical level I do not have to prove scientifically the existence of God.

The evidence that you reject in the scientific debate - the witness to miracles - are solid "evidence" to me that you reject saying they are liars or confused - but in any case you affirm that the witnesses to God and his acts are not speaking truth.

And your proof of that is not scientific - you have no proof these folks are liars - indeed you believe they are liars based on faith in something that taught you there is no GOD.

[BurtWorm]

321. Do you believe every urban legend because someone says someone else

witnessed it?

[papau]

326. Unless I see with my own eyes? -- do you accept reseach done by

others.

In the Social Sciences should one assume all reports by others where you where not there to confirm are lies?

or at least not trustworthy enough to be used for a research paper?

[BurtWorm]

330. Are urban legends and research on the same level of second-hand info?

You don't really think they are, do you? You do know the many differences between Three-fingered Willy and a paper by Andrew Hacker, right?

[papau]

334. So the early Christains equate to three-finger Willy? interesting.

why?

Or did that evil Vatican change the truth told by those early Christains.

I do love my tin foil hat.

[BurtWorm]

335. How much do you know about the earliest Christians?

How can you trust people whose names you don't even know? Even if you believe the gospels were written by the people whose names are attached to them, what do you really know about those men (and why do they contradict each other)?

I'm not suggesting there was a conspiracy. I'm just saying the earliest church is clouded in mystery. One thing is very clear: the church we know today is largely the construct of believers who came long after the purported events described in the gospels took place.

[papau]

350. true - but I appear to not see as much mystery-nor as much important error

as you do.

The Gospels carry a Name that refers to a early church tradition (each group locked on one Gospel and was known as a Church of that Gospel. And this is makes invalid what? - the name of the Gospel ??? - ok

There is a book - Documents of the early church - that might be an interesting read for some on this thread. At least I found it interesting.

Contradictions in multiple oral histories proves what? And since the contradictions are minor to say the least, we are left with some atheists that argue later reductions to paper that are called a "Gospel" are restatements of Mark with poetic license - and Mark is wrong (God only know why the atheist claim Mark is wrong)- and the areas that simply add to Mark can not be trusted because they were reduced to writing at a later date.

So to answer your question, I find it easy to trust people whose names I may, or may not, really know.

[BurtWorm]

380. I don't think I've used the word "error."

It's not error or "validity" I'm talking about but historicity. Tradition has it that the apostles or their secretaries wrote the gospels named for them, but there's no reason to think either is true, is there, other than that they have first names attached to them? As Paul and some of the other earliest Church fathers make no reference to any of them, it seems safe to say they were written after he wrote his epistles, which would place them more than 40 years after the alleged events they describe take place. Isn't that right? (Or were they all kept from circulation for 40 years?) In fact, don't the first references to the Gospels begin to appear in the second century? Wouldn't that date them to more than 70 years after the alleged crucifixion?

From my perspective, after three decades of taking the historicity of Jesus and the gospels for granted, despite having stopped thinking of myself as a Christian after the age of 8, the facts I'd taken for granted suddenly stopped hanging together for me when I revisited them out of curiosity when wondering about that early church again. That's why I don't trust them as fact.

[papau]

389. I agree that the oral history that became the Gospels were not

referenced as such by Paul - and that indeed they did not move from oral to written until well after Jesus's death.

Mark is usually dated before the fall of Jerusalem - so between 60 and 70 AD. The others are later. The dates of the rejected Gospels such as the story of boy Jesus throwing dirt into the air and it flying away as a bird are not known to me.

The oral tradition may - or may not - be a reasonable reason for not writing them down earlier - but James, Jesus's brother and leader of the Church in Jerusalem - treated the group as just one more sect of Jews and indeed worshiped at the Temple until they were tossed out by the Jewish "fundis" of their day. I suspect there was no need to write much down before 60AD.

[BurtWorm]

390. Why did Hillel and Philo and other contemporaries write down their stuff?

Why did the Essenes? Or better put, why didn't the Christians?

[papau]

393. I'll ask James when I see him - until then I do not know that it was

not written down. Indeed my understanding was that each Church in each town had its own "Gospel" - and I suspect Mark was the first to pull the ones he knew about together into a "standard" Gospel According to Mark.

[BurtWorm]

399. But as you don't know for certain, are you willing to grant you may be

entirely wrong in every detail? Can you understand why nonbelievers would be skeptical about virtually every piece of information we have concerning the early church? For example, where do you get the idea that each church had its own gospel? How many gospels, then, were there in AD 40-70, would you say?

Also, if Christianity was still "Jewish" at this point (around the time of Paul or even just before him, according to some Christian chroniclers), and if Mark was a Jew from Judea, why was his gospel written in Greek?

[papau]

403. Yes, of course - The last time I claimed to be totally correct was I hope

never -

In any case, The teacher's at the Virginal (Episcopal) seminary led me to believe that each village had its own Gospel. I do not have documents that say that that I can pull up on the internet. sorry.

Greek was the language of doers and shakers of the Roman empire - (Latin was the language of the common man or the vulgate language, and local languages were just that - local languages).

[BurtWorm]

413. Then why didn't Hillel write in Greek?

Philo wrote in Greek because he was in Alexandria and probably didn't know Hebrew very well, but Jews in Judea wrote in Hebrew or Aramaic, didn't they? (Josephus wrote in Latin because his history of the Jews was for the Emperor, wasn't it?)

Is there another example of a Jew from Judea who wrote in Greek? I don't know of any.

[beam me up scottie]

332. Your faith is not a topic of interest.

Your denial of the facts and religious intolerance is.

You claim we reject your god.

You cannot prove your god.

Your claim that we reject what we do not know is false.

The burden of proof is on you.

You are required to provide a definition and proof of whatever it is we are rejecting or your argument is invalid.

You are unable to do that and have instead become a master of circular reasoning in order to distract from that fact.

[papau]

351. You are required to provide a definition and proof ? - NOPE

Guess that sums up our differences.

[beam me up scottie]

368. Yes. If you claim we reject your god and you can prove it exists,

the burden of proof is on you.

We can keep this up all day.

Why not just provide us with the definition and the proof so that we can decide if we are going to reject this god you claim exists?

I'm getting tired of waiting for you to stop hedging.

[papau]

377. I do not claim that I can prove existence of God adequate for you

I do claim that I can prove existence of God adequate for me.

So why is there a burden of proof on me that is not also on you if you are stating that there is no God?

And we both get to judge how adequate that proof is to ourself - RIGHT? or do you have the right to tell me that the proof that I am accepting is inadequate, while I can not tell you that you have not meet the level of proof that I demand for the statement there is no God?

Meanwhile is the playing field metaphysics - or science? And who gets to choose the playing field?

[beam me up scottie]

383. I never stated there was no god .

So again, I can skip all of your circular reasoning because your entire argument is based on a false claim.

You say I reject your deity, you have to prove it exists for me to do that.

No proof, no argument.

Like I said, I'm tired of waiting.

Either provide proof so that I can choose whether or not to reject it or admit that you are wrong about my atheism.

[papau]

392. You claim to not reject the possiblity of God - Agnostic in the old days -

and the atheist definition - that there is no God - that is in the dictionary is wrongly applied to you.

Having redefined Atheism to one being Agnostic, I have nothing to debate with you - as long as you stop there. But you don't stop there.

If you insist that I can not "prove" my God - I simply note the level of evidence is in question - not the existance of evidence that can be used in a scientific debate.

If you claim I have no basis for believing in God because I justify my belief by faith - I reject your rejection of faith as a logical metaphysical way to get to belief.

If you claim that only I the theist have a need to provide proof, I note that this is not true in metaphysics if you are claiming there is no God.

If you claim the only proper playing field is scientific - and reject all metaphysics discussiuon/logic - then we are back to level of evidence in the scientific - and I reject your assertion that there is no evidence.

Indeed all "rejections" above are based on my understanding of logic - feel free to state that you are better at logic.

If you claim theist use circular reasoning - or perhaps just I do - have at it.

Whatever floats your boat.

[beam me up scottie]

404. Papau, Logic ran into the night screaming when she saw your posts.

I did not redefine anything.

You refused to accept my definition of my atheism and insisted on using your own.

You then went on to claim that I reject your god based solely on "your" definition of my atheism.

You continued to attribute that false statement to me after having been reminded, repeatedly, that I made no such statement.

And just now, you posted that I claim "theist use circular reasoning" when I made no such statement.

Another example:

Papau: "If you claim I have no basis for believing in God because I justify my belief by faith - I reject your rejection of faith as a logical metaphysical way to get to belief."

I never claimed that you "have no basis for believing in God because (you) justify (your) belief by faith".

The rest of your post is incoherent and of no relevance since it is obviously based on another statement which you falsely attribute to me.

[papau]

407. I know I am tired but below is your post - I believe my post was on point

As to "theist use circular reasoning" you said "I never stated there was no god . So again, I can skip all of your circular reasoning because your entire argument is based on a false claim."

And " You say I reject your deity, you have to prove it exists for me to do that." is the source for my response and now your "You then went on to claim that I reject your god based solely on "your" definition of my atheism."


"No proof, no argument" is the basis of my saying it is level of proof


And "admit that you are wrong about my atheism" is the basis for saying if you define your atheism as agnostic then I am indeed "wrong" - but then I wonder why you then go back to traditional atheist talking points.

Of course you say the atheist and agnostic can be the same person - which has some logic problems for me that you apparently do not have with it.

[beam me up scottie]

416. I have no idea what any of that means.

Your "point" seems to be based on your intolerant opinion of atheism and the fact that you refuse to accept our definition of ourselves proves that it is, indeed, intolerant.

Until you can learn to respect me, my fellow atheists and our right to define our atheism, everything else is off the table.

[papau]

422. the table was so full before that - LOL

:-)

[arwalden]

408. Yes, Papau, I See What You Mean. -- You've Made Some Excellent Points...

No! I'm just kidding!



But I had you going just for a second, didn't I?

[Name removed]

423. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[papau]

249. the precision of the language" includes the word "logic" as it applies

to metaphysics - indeed an uneven playing field appears to result as each side talks past the other -

[SteppingRazor]

425. Locking

This was an interesting discussion while it lasted, but I think both sides of the debate will agree that it has degenerated into a shouting match.