(December 29, 2015 at 8:01 am)robvalue Wrote: Was I too harsh? I don't know.

I feel sometimes people need to hear these things for their own good.

Not in the slightest.

Delicate. Please explain what you think god is.

You're asking him to explain something? C'mon people. Haven't y'all learned that his circular arguments are nothing more than incomprehensible word salad and having any sort of intelligent conversation at this point, after 42+ pages, is simply a waste of time?

For shits sakes, quit feeding the troll.

(December 29, 2015 at 8:36 am)Judi Lynn Wrote: You're asking him to explain something? C'mon people. Haven't y'all learned that his circular arguments are nothing more than incomprehensible word salad and having any sort of intelligent conversation at this point, after 42+ pages, is simply a waste of time?

For shits sakes, quit feeding the troll.

Like the needy lover they want so much and give so little.

(December 29, 2015 at 7:36 am)Delicate Wrote:

(December 29, 2015 at 3:17 am)pocaracas Wrote: Indeed it helps, thank you.

It seems you are operating under the impression that atheism is the position or claim that gods do not exist.
However, the more general case of atheism is the not acceptance of the claim that any particular god exists... especially, applied to all gods ever claimed to exist by any man.
In simpler terms, atheism is "not believing in the existence of gods", as opposed to your definition of "believing in the non-existence of gods". The difference can be subtle, but it paves the road for what comes next.


Atheism as the claim that gods do not exist is indeed not the default position.
But atheism as the non-claim of existence of any god would be an adequate default position.

(A)gnosticism is applied as a concept of knowledge over the particular subject of the divine. A sort of measure of how sure people are about the existence or non-existence of gods. It complements the (a)theist view as this one relates to belief. People will often bring forth a 2D chart to illustrate this, but, essentially, you can have 4 quadrants: atheist agnostic, atheist gnostic, theist gnostic and theist agnostic.
The most common are "atheist agnostic" and "theist gnostic". The theist gnostic who thinks that the atheist is also gnostic will tend to, like yourself, think that agnostic is an independent category... alas, humans are not that easy to catalog.... on both these axis (knowledge vs belief) there is a continuum of positions.

Like I said, the norm among atheists is the "agnostic atheist", which possibly coincides with what you describe as simply "agnostic". No claim of knowledge is made concerning the actual non-existence of any god (for it is the intellectually honest position), but, for all intents and purposes, life is carried out as if no god exists (for there is no hint that any god has any influence over life - or anything).


Allow me to unravel that "not believing that atheism is the default position" to "not believing that 'not believing in the existence of gods' is the default position".
Now that's it's properly explicit, using the correct definition of atheism, perhaps you can agree this sentence makes no sense?

The default position is that which makes no claims, except those that are borne of immediate experience... like gravity - things fall.
Hence, the lack of claim for any god would be the default position. Such lack can be defined as atheism, but, under a hypothetical society that has never known of such a claim, the concept of atheism would be as foreign as the concept of "afaerism" or "aunicornism" are to us.

A good way to cash out the difference between your view and mine is that mine sits neatly into the established model of knowledge and belief in epistemology.

All this talk about accepting and rejecting beliefs, nonbeliefs, etc, is only made by atheist internet warriors.

So my question is simple: why not go with the norms established in epistemology?

I was just using the standard definitions:
atheism:
"
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
"

One can be an atheist as long as he fulfills either of these possibilities.

agnostic:
"
1. a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
Synonyms: disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic, secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel, pagan.
2. a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
3. a person who holds neither of two opposing positions on a topic: 'Socrates was an agnostic on the subject of immortality.'
"

One can be agnostic as long as he fulfills one of these possibilities. I'd say that #2 is agnostic in its broader sense, while #1 is applied to the question of the existence of God (capital G, as if it means only a particular deity, like Yahweh).

It seems to me that epistemology deals with the gnosticism part.... the knowledge, or claim to knowledge about gods.
epistemology:
"
a branch of philosophy that investigates the origin, nature, methods, and limits of human knowledge.
"

Why should we use the models you have found in someone's definition of epistemology over those found in common dictionaries?

But let me try to to understand what is that "neatly established model of [...] belief in epistemology".
"
Epistemology, Truth, and Why We Believe What We Believe:

Atheists and theists differ in what they believe: theists believe in some god, atheists do not. Although their reasons for believing or not believing vary, it's common for atheists and theists to also differ in what they consider to be appropriate criteria for truth and, therefor, the proper criteria for a reasonable belief. Theists commonly rely upon criteria like tradition, custom, revelation, faith, and intuition.

Atheists common reject these criteria in favor of correspondence, coherence, and consistency. Without discussing these different approaches, debates over what ones believes are unlikely to go very far.
"

Not much argument from me, there...

How about here?
The Epistemology of Atheism:
"
It is not clear that arguments against atheism that appeal to faith have any prescriptive force the way appeals to evidence do. The general evidentialist view is that when a person grasps that an argument is sound that imposes an epistemic obligation on her to accept the conclusion. Insofar as having faith that a claim is true amounts to believing contrary to or despite a lack of evidence, one person’s faith that God exists does not have this sort of inter-subjective, epistemological implication. Failing to believe what is clearly supported by the evidence is ordinarily irrational. Failure to have faith that some claim is true is not similarly culpable.

Justifying atheism, then, can entail several different projects. There are the evidential disputes over what information we have available to us, how it should be interpreted, and what it implies. There are also broader meta-epistemological concerns about the roles of argument, reasoning, belief, and religiousness in human life. The atheist can find herself not just arguing that the evidence indicates that there is no God, but defending science, the role of reason, and the necessity of basing beliefs on evidence more generally.
"

Everything still seems in line with the dictionary definition.


I don't know how acceptable this link may be...
epistemology - What are atheism and agnosticism
"
1 A gnostic theist, believing in one or more gods because one believes that god(s) are knowable (and probably believes to have received some direct revelation)
2 An agnostic theist, believing in one or more gods despite believing that there is no way to prove the belief correct (for example, many deist-style beliefs, 'I just know', etc.)
3 An agnostic atheist, unconvinced by any claims involving one or more gods and believing that no positive evidence for said god(s) could even be produced
4 A gnostic atheist, believing that the existence of one or more gods CAN be determined and the absence of the evidence for said god(s) weighs heavily in favour of their non-existence.
"


Well... I give up... it seems the concepts for these words used in epistemology are pretty much the dictionary ones.

(December 26, 2015 at 7:18 pm)Delicate Wrote:

(December 26, 2015 at 7:03 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Nobody is mad at you, but say for your bad use of logic, yes. Again our reactions are no different than if you had a friend walking around claiming the Yankees won the Superbowl. You are confusing your own cognitive dissonance for us being angry personally at you. Some may be, me personally no, but yes, your bad claims do irritate me. 

I wonder what you expected coming here. If you thought this was going to be a library 100% of the time that was a mistake. Instead of saying "alot of atheists" if you have a beef with someone take it up with that individual not all of us. And if that individual does not respond the way you like, then you go to the admins. That is the way most websites work, including theists websites.

Atheists are not lost puppies for you to save. This website will also NOT boot you merely for believing. They have booted atheists as well. They've also pulled me over a couple of times. 

Now if you are done with your pity party my advice is for you to treat everyone here as individuals. We wont barbecue your kittens nor do we drink blood. You are not the first believer to join this website nor or you the first believer to post on any atheist social media, nor will you be the last.

All of us here have family members and or co workers and friends who have some sort of belief to some degree. We are not mad at you personally, at least not most of us. But again, bad logic irritates most of us. You need to learn to separate you the person, from what you claim. All taking it personally will do is make you miserable.

I understand what you're saying. And I've always, without exception, been willing to discuss these cases of alleged bad logic.

But the evidence has never been forthcoming. Only the assertions come through. And this can be verified by looking at my conversations.

You can also prove me wrong my pointing to the evidence. I welcome that.

I will pledge that if people are willing to debate the issues with substantive criticisms that don't rely on ad hominem attacks, namecalling, deliberate caricatures, and empty rhetoric, I pledge to respond with the same substance, and more.

The only one here using bad logic is you. The only one making naked assertions here is you.

I don't make any "pledge" outside the First Amendment in your right to make bad claims. I am under no legal obligation to value naked assertions. 

Our species was around before the first organized language, it was around long before the first written language and any written religion. Our planet is 4 billion years old. Our universe is 14 billion years old. Those are scientific facts not in dispute. Science also proves that our planet's core will stop and and that the sun too will have an end. This universe does not care about humans or your superstition. 

Your pet deity claim is no more valid or credible anymore than any currently claimed or claimed in the past.

Pocaracas:

Delicate is correct, and you are incorrect. The reason is as follows, and is quite simple and to the point:

In Christianity, both the atheist and the agnostic go to hell for their disbelief in God. This belief is also epistemologically verified, absolutely certain, and under no circumstances true under any other condition.

Also, this is the reason why atheists do not hold a valid epistemic viewpoint, and many, many other standard issues.

Similarly, it is the reason for abandoning atheism entirely.

(December 29, 2015 at 7:36 am)Delicate Wrote: A good way to cash out the difference between your view and mine is that mine sits neatly into the established model of knowledge and belief in epistemology.

All this talk about accepting and rejecting beliefs, nonbeliefs, etc, is only made by atheist internet warriors.

So my question is simple: why not go with the norms established in epistemology?

Once again proving you don't know shit about epistemology. I suppose these so called 'norms' of epistemology are on the shelf next to your evidence for God. Anyone with even a general exposure to epistemology wouldn't jettison the concept of justification as you do.

Actual Gif of JK, talking about his noble name:

he's a poe