10
   

'No God' campaign draws complaint

 
 
Merry Andrew
 
  2  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2009 07:47 am
@Setanta,
As I said, it seems to be a matter of semantics.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2009 11:00 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
You still haven't told me why non-belief in the anthropomorphic monstrosity which passes for a diety in the Bible or non-belief in the fairy tales told in church and Sunday school is not the same thing as atheism.


Because it isn't!

I have non-belief in "the in the anthropomorphic monstrosity which passes for a deity in the Bible or non-belief in the fairy tales told in church and Sunday school"...and I am not an atheist.

Non-belief in what I consider to be horse-**** doesn't make an atheist.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2009 11:32 am
@Merry Andrew,
If you don't wish to discuss it, MA, perhaps you should just say so. I'm not saying that everyone who rejects such concepts is, ipso facto, an atheist. But the simple rejection of a contention such as that such a deity exists, very well can describe some atheists.

The reason i asked you that, MA, is because many people insist that an atheist can only be an atheist by denying that any gods do or could exist. It is usually done by people such as christians, agnostics and other religionists who wish to claim some sort of moral superiority.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2009 12:17 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
The reason i asked you that, MA, is because many people insist that an atheist can only be an atheist by denying that any gods do or could exist. It is usually done by people such as christians, agnostics and other religionists who wish to claim some sort of moral superiority.


Or people who understand that the word's etymology is "having NO gods"--and that classically it has denoted people who deny that there are (or can be) any gods...and that only modern atheists have managed to contort the meaning of the word to mean "simply lacking belief in a god" because they don't have the guts to actually defend an assertion that there are no gods...or because they don't the guts and ethics to acknowledge that they have a "belief" that there are no gods.

The only reason agnostics claim moral superiority over athesits...is that they are!
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2009 01:56 pm
"Without god," or "having no god" (singular, not plural), whichever you wish. There is a distinction, however to be made between asserting that one knows something for a fact, and denying such an assertion when someone else makes it. You, of course, can't accept that, because your entire specious house of cards rests upon claiming that religionists and atheists are equivalent, but polar opposite, positions. In some cases, that may be correct, as for example with the types of clowns who waste money on an advertising compaign such as this. Of course, they are free to spend their money as they wish--personally, i see no substantive difference between them and the religionists, and am equally uninterested in their polemics.

I am equally uninterested in the polemics of someone whose silly claims, when carried to their logical conclusion, would not allow him to assert to a certainty that the tooth fairy, the Easter bunny, pixies, faires, elves, brownies, etc., etc., don't exist . . . because of an obsessive devotion to a point of view which is as poorly considered as it is maniacally maintained. Such a person hasn't the gust to acknowledge that his point of view is not as universally applicable and "superior" as he claims it is.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2009 02:28 pm
@Setanta,

Quote:
Without god," or "having no god" (singular, not plural), whichever you wish.



Atheist " from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny the gods, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (c.1534) which is perhaps from It. atheo "atheist."

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=atheist&searchmode=none



So the root is “a god” " without “a god”...which is to say, without any gods.

The notion that it is singular is bullshit!

No idea why you even got into that, Set...except of course, for your pettiness and need always to be correcting people.

But if you couldn't even get something like this right...why even bother with that illogical prattle that also was there...

...right???
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2009 02:57 pm
From your own source, Frankie:

Quote:
from a- "without" + theos "a god" (emphasis added)


I am unsurprised when you can't get things like this right.

In another thread, you tried more than once to claim that i am angry, but without knowing that i am angry. By your own paltry standard that makes you a hypocrite.

I see you have no comment on pixies, fairies, elves, brownies, etc., Frankie. Why is that? Perhaps is because it glaringly exposes the central flaw in your thesis, upon which you tout the excellence of your understanding.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2009 03:11 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
There is a distinction, however to be made between asserting that one knows something for a fact, and denying such an assertion when someone else makes it. You, of course, can't accept that...


Gosh, you are just filled with stupidity in this post, Set. Not like you at all. Usually there is much less stupidity in your posts.

I have no problem at all with understanding that there is a distinction, indeed a difference, between those two.

Not sure what you mean by "accept it"...but I am pretty sure I accept it just the way you do. It is a fact.

Quote:
...because your entire specious house of cards rests upon claiming that religionists and atheists are equivalent, but polar opposite, positions.


Nope, I am always careful to be sure my specious houses of cards rest upon more than just one pillar. And the thing you are talking about here is only a specious house of cards in your clouded mind.


Quote:
I am equally uninterested in the polemics of someone whose silly claims, when carried to their logical conclusion, would not allow him to assert to a certainty that the tooth fairy, the Easter bunny, pixies, faires, elves, brownies, etc., etc., don't exist . . . because of an obsessive devotion to a point of view which is as poorly considered as it is maniacally maintained.


You really do have to get in control of that anger, Set. It is starting to rule you...and it makes you say silly things...like this bit.

My agnosticism with regard to whether or not there are gods involved in the Reality of existence is stated: I do not know if there is a God (are gods)...I do not know if there are no gods...and I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess.

If you do “know there is a God (or gods)...or if you do “know there are no gods”...then you are in a different place from me. If you do not know either of those things...then we are 5 x 5 up to this point.

Do you know there is a GOD (are gods)...or that there are no gods?

Do you see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess as to whether the Reality of existence contains a God or gods...or contains no gods?

If we are still at NO for you...we are identical.

If YES...we should discuss it. I would love that!

So what is you problem, Sweetie?


Quote:
Such a person hasn't the gust to acknowledge that his point of view is not as universally applicable and "superior" as he claims it is.


Nah...if I thought for a second (made a reasonable guess) that my point of view on this is not universally applicable or superior to both theism or atheism...I would acknowledge it in a second. I'm not like you in that regard. No need for you to project your personality problems on me, Set.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2009 03:11 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
So the root is “a god” " without “a god”...which is to say, without any gods.

"without any gods" describes my position quite well I believe. Seems it should work for you also.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2009 03:12 pm
@Setanta,
If you are without a god...it means you are without any gods.

Try to figure out the language, Set.

It's not a second language for you, is it????
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2009 03:13 pm
@mesquite,
I have no problem with that...but apparently Set does.
mesquite
 
  2  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2009 03:29 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

I have no problem with that...but apparently Set does.

Atheist (without any god or gods) works for me and it was my understanding that atheist was Setanta's preferred term also. I don't see that singular or plural makes much difference. Saying that I am without any god does not exclude the possible existence of some unknown god.
Frank Apisa
 
  0  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2009 03:36 pm
@mesquite,
Sounds good to me, Mesquite.

He was the one making a big thing out of singular or plural...but you know Set.
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2009 03:44 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Good, and I am glad to see that you are now an atheist also? Twisted Evil
Ashers
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2009 03:54 pm
When there is no working definition or any description at all of god in terms of experimentally confirming it to actually decide one way or the other, I don’t see the problem with just dismissing the whole thing. It’s not the same as claiming there is no god because you couldn’t do that even if you wanted, there’s no reasonable description to connect the sentiment to. It’s just a dismissal of the whole thing, that’s really more my atheism. Pretty simple. The fact there never is a reasonable description is very telling and points to something beyond the game a lot of a/theists go through all the time but that’s another matter entirely.

You could go further and explicitly dismiss more specific examples like philosophically problematical ones but then it just dissolves into a word game (it always is one really which is the entire problem) and you quickly find yourself back at square one. Arguing a lot but searching for very little.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2009 04:00 pm
@mesquite,
Nope!
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2009 04:04 pm
@Ashers,
Okay...and I have no problem with that.

I just happen to think my agnosticism expresses my view on this better.

I do not know there is a GOD...or gods...involved in the Reality of existence. That is a given.


I do not know if there are no gods involved either. That also is a given.

I do not have enough unambiguous evidence to make a meaningful guess in either direction.

That seems fairly clear cut...and out front.

And as far as I am concerned...the best possible description of a person in that situation is: Agnostic.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2009 04:27 pm
All of your sneers and insults don't change the important fact that you make a special case of theism. You express your uncertainty there in a way that you don't express it with regard to fairies, pixies, elves, brownies, etc. You have said before that you consider the question of theism a special case, dissimilar to questions about the Easter bunny or the tooth fairy. Therefore, when you make your snide remarks about your moral superiority, you are practicing hypocrisy, because this is not a principle which you universally apply.

I don't have a problem with what you believe. I don't care what you think of me for what i do not believe. I find it hilarious, though, that you think you are entitled to claim moral superiority, while resolutely ignoring your own hypocrisy. Craven once asked you about something to the effect of there being little green proctologists living on Jupiter. You missed the significance of that question altogether. Such a contention is implausible. It is so implausible, that a person can, in all honesty, deny the possibility on the basis of a reasonable estimate of the conditions for supporting life on Jupiter and the proliferation of proctologists throughout the cosmos. That is important because none of us can embrace all knowledge, and we are therefore obliged in many matters to make reasonable judgments on the basis of probabilities. My reasonable judgment based on probabilities is that no description of a god which anyone has ever attempted to retail to me is plausible.

Believe what you like, suspend belief or disbelief in whatever you want. But don't expect to be taken seriously when you come up with your idiotic claim to moral superiority based on your belief or disbelief of choice.
Ashers
 
  3  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2009 04:28 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Fair enough but the issue I would take with that personally is that being agnostic to the issue seems to give the discussion credence. Like, there is something worthwhile going on here, interesting points are being made by both sides with something to grasp and get hold of being clear to all BUT I'm not swayed either way.

When the terms are so amazingly ambiguous and the arguments are so often nothing more than word salad I think it makes more sense to dismiss the motion altogether. Hence why atheism, rather than theism. Not because atheists make such great retorts but because it's theists who initiate the claims or what my old history teacher called, "superfluous gubbins".

The thing is, not only are there not good parameters for having a discussion or for proving it one way or another when these arguments take place in every day life, I don't, theoretically speaking, think there ever will be. All because of the nature of the question which for me has no solid ground beneath it. It doesn't seem to be a matter of greater technological advancement or further probing into the cosmos. What would it mean to FIND god? I don't think anyone who is talking experimentally and verifiably (which is on what grounds nearly all the arguments take place) has even the faintest clue. To be agnostic on this, for me, would be to ignore this fatal problem.

It's possible this too is all semantics so I just wanted to point out what I and I think some others are thinking in terms of atheism.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 6 Feb, 2009 04:29 pm
Excellent analysis, Ashers.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/25/2022 at 01:15:19