Opinion on this Creed

[Whateverist]

 

 
    Well we'll do our best to help you with that boredom.  But remember we have very little faith and zero belief so it may be hard to find common ground.  Also, you'd be surprised at the low regard in which philosophy is held around here by many.  But you should definitely match light sabers with Nestor.  He is a young firebrand chugging down philosophers like there is no tomorrow.  If you two connect, would someone please PM me to make sure I don't miss the fireworks?

 
Thanks!  You are really going to try to tell me that atheists do not possess faith?  That may be a topic for a different time.  

Another time will do fine but I'm happy to end your suspense by telling you I indeed do have faith, loads of it.  I have faith there are truths to be had and that they will open themselves to me so long as I remain open to them.  I have no belief in God but I have faith in whatever turns out to be true.  I stand ready to believe whatsoever that turns out to be.

[Whateverist]

Hiccup post

[Jenny A]

How is appealing to philosophical references in order to define a philosophical term irrelevant?

Atheism in not a philosophy.  It is a state of mind, a state lacking a belief in god. And there is nothing particularly authoritative about a philosophical dictionary with the exception of description of various philosophies.  But even then the adherents of those philosophies would not better. .

Precisely!  You’re proving my point, early Christians did not merely lack a belief in other gods; they positively affirmed that all other gods did not exist; which is exactly how the term is used today.

Good.  Can I call you an atheist?  See.  Words change and they have nuance.  Currently among self described atheists you are wrong.  Atheists do not have a belief in a god or gods.  That's it.

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10][11]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods:

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/def...sh/atheist

Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God."

http://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism?

    You are mistaking words describing a state of belief or non belief in gods, for claim of proof their beliefs are correct.  A lack of belief in god is a state of being, not an argument for or against god.  Belief that there is no god is also a state of being, not an argument for or against god.  Belief that there is a god is a state of belief, not an argument that there is a god.

Where is this rule that a person can arbitrarily redefine a word if it’s a belief but not if it’s an argument? 

The usage has changed get over it. That change has to do with the way the word is used not the kind of word it is.  The word is descriptive.  No word is in and of itself an argument.  Theist and atheist are not arguments but states of belief.  There are arguments supporting them, but they are separate from the words.  The word bachelor is not an argument for bachelorhood just a term describing men who are not married.

Additionally, even if this were the case you would be guilty of breaking your own rule because changing the definition of atheism changes the argument for atheism.  It changes from “Since atheism is the affirmation of the non-existence of god here is my argument to support that affirmation….” to “Since atheism is the lack of belief in a god I am not required to give an argument in order to support my atheism.”  It’s a very sly tactic, but simply not allowed.

Hardly.  It merely clarifies.  Gnostic atheist believe there is no god.  Agnostic atheists lack a belief in god.  You apparently believe there is a god.  Regardless of which opponent or both you choose you still have the burden of proving there is a god, should you want to debate the issue.

    Belief in a claim, any claim, is not either or.  It is always: proven, false, or unproven.  For example, there is a quarter on my computer desk.  I claim it is heads up.  You can believe me, you can think I'm lying, or you can take the rational approach and remain undecided.  Similarly, suppose there is a jar of jelly beans.  I say there are 1003 jelly beans in the jar.  The claim has been made.  You can reject it, agree, or reserve judgment until the jelly beans are counted.

Remaining undecided is Huxley’s Agnosticism, not atheism.  If you want to identify as an

So you want to use old usage.  My lack of belief remains the same. I am an atheist of the subset agnostic atheist or weak atheist if you prefer.  

Agnostic Atheist” is not a term used in any philosophical reference that I am aware of.   In fact, many agnostics that I know would be quite offended to be lumped in with atheists.

So? Let them be offended.  I find your insistence that I must either be sure god exists or he doesn't offense.  Oh wait. . . didn't you say it was a either or proposition?  You did.  So if you can only believe there is a god or believe there isn't who would agnostics be?  You've already defined them out of existence.

Once you have heard the concept of a god, you now either put forth positive belief or disbelief in this god, there is no longer a lack of belief.  I ask you to please demonstrate that groups of people are allowed to redefine the meanings of words for the purpose of personal gain.  If a married man thinks he is a bachelor it does not make it so.

If there is not lack of belief or uncertainty then who are these agnostic people you are defending?  You can't have it both ways either people like me who know about god but lack belief exist or we don't.

 People have been defining and redefining words since the beginning of language.  The meaning of words changes over time.  There's a whole branch of study devoted to that phenomenon.  It's called entomology.

This is the is/ought fallacy, whether or not people do something does not demonstrate that they have the right to do said thing.  Additionally, there has been no change to the word atheism within the philosophical community; it seems to be only something that lay persons attempt to get away with.

Lay persons?  There is a philosophical laity?  Giggles.  This philosophical body of authorities is non-existent.  There are philosophers and people who read and or study philosophy.  There is no body of philosophical authority.  
 

  

Setting words aside.  I can't prove there is no god.  I only claim that god remains an unproven claim.  The burden of proving he exists remains on he who claims he does.  What you suggest does away with the burden of proof altogether.  The claim that big foot exists has been made.  It is the burden of those claiming him to show big foot exists.  The fact that most people find their evidence unconvincing does not shift the burden of proof to abigfootists.

Actually, when dealing with an interrogative such as “Does God exist?” the burden of proof is shared equally.  Secondly, one could also make the case that since theism is obviously the default position and the vast majority of people do find the evidence for God’s existence to be more than sufficient that burden of proof rests wholly upon the atheists since they are the ones arguing against the consensus position.  That being said, if I were an atheist I’d be trying to shift the burden of proof as well because that’s an impossible position to defend.    

Actually no.  The burden of showing the existence of anything is always on the person claim that thing.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well look who's back...and you open it up by bitching about the burden of proof?  How very typical.  I take it that you still haven't found a way to -meet- that burden....given your reintroduction?

[Cato]

The first point seems to be false; millions of people have perceived the presence of god all over the world.

This isn't accurate. Millions of people claim to have experienced god; however, without demonstration the claim remains dubious. As I stated, god is invoked as a cause for any number of things; however, god is always mysteriously absent to other observers. Without corroboration, the claim cannot be verified. I have experienced any number of intense emotions that elicit real physical responses: nausea (burning bosom to Mormons), flushed skin, muscle tension, crying, headaches, etc. States of mind and attending physical responses are not the presence of god.

The second claim seems to be bizarre, are you saying that you do not believe in the existence of light because blind people cannot see it?

Don't be obtuse. The point is that personal testimony based on an experience that can only be known to a particular person is insufficient information for the basis of a truth claim to be generally accepted. People like Paul may convince others to believe his tale; however, no matter the number of believers, his experience should not be accepted as truth because nobody else can experience it. Citing an example of a particular person that is deprived of a particular sense misses the point. Besides, a blind person can perceive the warmth of light so it isn't impossible for a blind person to experience light.

[Whateverist]

Well look who's back...and you open it up by bitching about the burden of proof?  How very typical.  I take it that you still haven't found a way to -meet- that burden....given your reintroduction?

Yeah, we'd want to keep the bar low too if we were trying sell the bill of goods he's stuck with.

[Kingpin]

Cato,

The interesting thing about Paul was that he was a known Christian persecutor (when he was Saul) and the churches who he wrote to and the people he preached knew this of him and could quite obviously see a very drastic change in his viewpoint. It was easier for them to believe what he was saying because there was a drastic change in his character.
Think of it in terms of an alcoholic. Someone you know, all of their life was an alcoholic. Suddenly one day they come to you and their life is in order and he is now the staunchest critic of alcohol and drunkenness. Diametrically opposed to what you know of him. You see a drastic change. So you ask what has changed. Are you not more likely to listen to what he has to say because you can see for yourself a drastic change? You are interested to know what has had this dramatic effect that worked for him.

[Lemonvariable72]

Cato,

The interesting thing about Paul was that he was a known Christian persecutor (when he was Saul) and the churches who he wrote to and the people he preached knew this of him and could quite obviously see a very drastic change in his viewpoint. It was easier for them to believe what he was saying because there was a drastic change in his character.
Think of it in terms of an alcoholic. Someone you know, all of their life was an alcoholic. Suddenly one day they come to you and their life is in order and he is now the staunchest critic of alcohol and drunkenness. Diametrically opposed to what you know of him. You see a drastic change. So you ask what has changed. Are you not more likely to listen to what he has to say because you can see for yourself a drastic change? You are interested to know what has had this dramatic effect that worked for him.

Do you have any evidence of Saul the prosecutor outside the bible?

[The Grand Nudger]

Cato,

The interesting thing about Paul was that he was a known Christian persecutor (when he was Saul) and the churches who he wrote to and the people he preached knew this of him and could quite obviously see a very drastic change in his viewpoint. It was easier for them to believe what he was saying because there was a drastic change in his character.
Think of it in terms of an alcoholic. Someone you know, all of their life was an alcoholic. Suddenly one day they come to you and their life is in order and he is now the staunchest critic of alcohol and drunkenness. Diametrically opposed to what you know of him. You see a drastic change. So you ask what has changed. Are you not more likely to listen to what he has to say because you can see for yourself a drastic change?  You are interested to know what has had this dramatic effect that worked for him.

-and if that person then replies "because fairies" I would wonder if they actually -have- made a switch from alcoholism and drunkeness, or whether it would even matter if they did, in their case. They're clearly nuts either way, and becoming a teatotaller doesn't seem to have helped with that. What's "worked for him" in your scenario..exactly? Seems like whatever it was -didn't- work for him. Before he was a drunk...now he needs a straightjacket.

I'd rather be a drunk than a loon. So, no, I'm not likely to listen, lend any credence, or even give a shit. This is an example of the general futility of apologetics, you're welcome.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Nonsense. My atheism is the absence of faith in any deities, your flailing notwithstanding.

Say, while you're patting yourself on the back for using a dictionary of philosophy (and I may as well have written a "dictionary of bullshit"), why don't you look up "knowledge" and "belief", because they're germane to this discussion.

Nice!  Atheism went from a “lack of belief in a god” to a “lack of faith in a god” in the course of one thread!  Well which is it? [/quote]

I suppose you'll need to look up "evacuated-middle fallacy" while you're there, that should be under the "logic" heading. The reason being is that atheism can be either of those things, and rather than hammer a complex human being into one of your overly simplistic pigeonholes, you'd do better to listen to them as they describe their attitude towards your pet deity.

And -- I chose the phrase "lack of faith" very carefully. There are differing connotative shades that separate "belief" and "faith" in their meanings and usage. I think we've found a little more homework you'll need to do before you can make useful contributions to this discussion.

You do realize that the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is edited by an atheist right?  Do not kill the messenger.    

That makes this overly simplistic definition even more suspect, insofar as that atheist my well be importing his own personal view of atheism into the dictionary's very limited definition. Maybe a penguin edited it?