Atheism

@argome321,

Quote:

So what are the odds, the chances that these god(s) exist? the probability seems minimal.

As you probably have figured, Argome, this topic is one that interests me a great deal.

The above quoted passage of yours is part of a larger exposition on the topic.

You seem to be saying that the probability (chances, odds) that a god exists is small. (1)

That is not necessarily what you are saying, because you might be saying that the probability that any of the gods you have so far seen posited (2)...exist is small, which is not the same thing.

I personally have absolutely no idea of the probability that a GOD or gods...exist. I cannot think of any way to calculate those odds.

I do, however, have some reason to suppose the god of the Bible, for instance, probably does not exist (is more likely a creation of men than an existing god divulging its existence to men).

Did you mean what I set out in (1) above…or (2).

And if (1)…how do you arrive there? What factors do you use to conclude as you do?

2 Replies

@ossobuco,

With all respect, I say that Neil's approach represents a unique niche worth examination. I, a 'foam at the mouth' believer, follow here, seeking to profit from the divergent views. And, indeed, views here are as divergent as posters.

Having said that, I return to the audience.

Ite. Missa est.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Oh, I am an agnostic. I just am not using the word as a descriptor any more than necessary...and then, only with the explanation I gave for what I mean for my agnosticism. (Which I just gave a few posts ago.)

I was pulling your leg.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

you might be saying that the probability that any of the gods you have so far seen posited exist is small, which is not the same thing.

I agree, Frank. Not the same thing at all. I haven't read this thread. But wasn't someone talking about Thomas Jefferson here? Ever hear of a "Jefferson Bible?"

Quote:

The Jefferson Bible, or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth as it is formally titled, was a book constructed by Thomas Jefferson in the latter years of his life by cutting and pasting with a razor and glue numerous sections from the New Testament as extractions of the doctrine of Jesus. Jefferson's condensed composition is especially notable for its exclusion of all miracles by Jesus and most mentions of the supernatural...

The religious views of Thomas Jefferson diverged widely from the orthodox Christianity of his era. Throughout his life Jefferson was intensely interested in theology, religious studies, and morality. Jefferson was most closely connected with Unitarianism and the religious philosophy of Christian deism...he repeatedly expressed his belief in a deistic god and his admiration for Jesus as a moral teacher...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson_and_religion

Basically, Jefferson made his own god, and said that, as far as he knew, his religion had only one follower (him).

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Oh, I am an agnostic. I just am not using the word as a descriptor any more than necessary...and then, only with the explanation I gave for what I mean for my agnosticism. (Which I just gave a few posts ago.)

I was pulling your leg.

I will refrain from asking, "Which one?"

Never got into town on Tuesday...although I wanted to. Did you? (You are Irish, right?)

0 Replies

@layman,

Right, Layman.

I'm sure Argome will let us know which he meant.

If he meant "any gods at all"...should be an interesting calculation!

0 Replies

@layman,

Quote:

Well, it is pretty messed up now. And an "agnostic theist" would be one who believes in god, but claims he's "not sure" if there's a god, I take it. So, in your definition, anyone who doesn't claim to "know" is an agnostic of some kind (i.e. either (1) an agnostic atheist, or (2) an agnostic theist)?

Yeah, I find it less confusing this way, This person would be a believer but has no way of Knowing a god(s) existence. I mean this person could belieive merely because it makes him or her feel good or a million and one other reasons good or bad.

Quote:

Now is it possible for a person to have NO beliefs about god? Someone who does NOT believe there is no god, but also does NOT believe there is a god? if that is possible, what would that be? An agnostic agnostic, maybe?

Since you mention belief and believing the only answer here of any relevance would be atheism.

If the person in question says he or she is an atheist and say they know there is no god(s) then we are talking about a Gnostic Atheist.

The problem then rises that any positive claim by either a Gnostic
Theists and a Gnostic Atheists puts them in the position of having others to ask them to prove their positions. How well they do it or even if they are able to do it may prove to be another story.

The easiest way I can explain it is that Theism and Atheism refers to the belief
the belief without portions respectively and Gnosticism and Agnosticism refers to the knowing and without knowings parts respectively.

I only know that when Theist come up to me and tell me what a atheist is other then how I described it earlier I then know there can be no constructive dialogue simply because our points of reference is different.

But for dialogue sake, If I say that I am a non-believer does that make a difference to you?

1 Reply

@layman,

not he - littlek is a woman

self-described atheists - >> if you'll note in the original post, she refers to atheists as we - those are the people she wanted to talk to - and those were the people who were speaking/posting here at one point

the people who insist on debating and redebating the same definitions for a decade on the board - when they enter this thread, they disrespect littlek

3 Replies

@argome321,

Quote:

But for dialogue sake, If I say that I am a non-believer does that make a difference to you?

No Arg, not at all. I simply made a point about atheist groups trying to rewrite the language, and stated my suspicions about why they do that. You said I was "clearly inaccurate" or something like that, so I was pursuing that issue with you. My basic position is that re-defining words does nothing to either change or eliminate valid concepts.

I've already said this once, but you didn't respond to it, so I'll try again. If I'm reading you right, if you're 99.99999% sure that there is no god, and another guy is 99.9999999% sure there IS a god, then you are both "agnostic atheists."
There is no continuum, it's all either BLACK or WHITE. The only theists are the "gnostic theists." Virtually everyone else is an atheist of the agnostic variety.

It's just words. I could start at the other end, and reach the opposite conclusion. For example:

1. An atheist is a gnostic atheist. He believes there is no god. Everyone else, who doesn't share his unique set of beliefs and claimed state of knowledge is some type of "theist": Either an agnostic theist or else a gnostic theist.

That probably would not strike you as being right. Likewise, your version does not strike me as capturing the range, and the nuances, of the positions in between these two positions:

1.There is no God. I know that (and hence necessarily believe it)
2.There is a God. I know that (and hence necessarily believe it)

2 Replies

Beth does not have that right at all, Layman.

The very first day this thread was originated, LittleK (Kris) started a protracted discussion with a non-atheist...and some of the matters being discussed here were discussed then.

New people come into the forum...and discussions have to be re-discussed. Anyone who does not want to participate can just bow out. To suggest that the discussions should not be taking place because they are disrespecting LittleK...something I would not do...is just grasping at reasons to be negative about the discussions currently going on.

I hope you and Argome continue to discuss the issues you are covering...and I suspect LittleK will adequately handle any insult she sees coming her way from your doing so.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Quote:

the people who insist on debating and redebating the same definitions...they enter this thread, they disrespect littlek

I would never conclude that from what was actually said (the invitation, as stated) by littlek, Beth. You have invented the "self-defined atheist" condition yourself, not her.

Why don't you say what you REALLY mean? Which, I gather, is that YOU feel disrespected because people who you don't want here are not jumping to obey your orders to leave.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I suspect LittleK will adequately handle any insult she sees coming her way from your doing so.

You beat me to it, Frank.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

I simply made a point about atheist groups trying to rewrite the language, and stated my suspicions about why they do that.

Several people here in the forum have complained that I try to rewrite the language because I have an unorthodox view of the words "believe" and "belief"...and because I acknowledge that I use some words differently in different contexts.

Over the years here, I have often mentioned the thing you just mentioned...especially as regards the word atheist.

Some atheists want to assert that having no belief in a god...requires that they call themselves atheists...asserting that the word derives "a" without + "theist" belief in a god.

But as you pointed out, the word atheist did not derive that way at all. In fact, the word atheist came into the English language BEFORE the word theist. Atheist is from the Greek through the French and means ("a" without + "theos" god) and means "without god."

The notion that being without a belief in a god makes one automatically an atheist is an absurdity...even though every atheist is without a belief in a god.

1 Reply

@layman,

layman wrote:

Quote:
I suspect LittleK will adequately handle any insult she sees coming her way from your doing so.

You beat me to it, Frank.

We are on the same page here, Layman.

I'm not sure what the story is with Beth on this. Up until about a month ago, she always identified herself as a theist. About a month ago (it may be a little longer) she suddenly mentioned that she is now an atheist.

She seems to have gotten a bit proprietary about it...and about this thread.

Under any circumstances...ANYONE is entitled to post in ANY thread in this forum...and no exclusionary factor should be given any more consideration than the individual poster wants to give it.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Some atheists want to assert that having no belief in a god...requires that they call themselves atheists

Yes, Frank, that now seems to be the official "party line" of many atheist organizations. That seems to be their way of claiming that people with beliefs (or lack thereof) far different from theirs are "just like them," and should "admit it."

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

These guys taking over the thread are not saying anything particularly new and certainly nothing that has not already been argued to death on scads of other threads. Trolls, they are.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Quote:
So what are the odds, the chances that these god(s) exist? the probability seems minimal.

As you probably have figured, Argome, this topic is one that interests me a great deal.

The above quoted passage of yours is part of a larger exposition on the topic.

You seem to be saying that the probability (chances, odds) that a god exists is small. (1)

Quote:
That is not necessarily what you are saying, because you might be saying that the probability that any of the gods you have so far seen posited (2)...exist is small, which is not the same thing.

If you notice I said god(s) meaning all gods monotheistic or and pantheistic, hence trying to be all inclusive. I also include the supernatural.

Quote:

I personally have absolutely no idea of the probability that a GOD or gods...exist. I cannot think of any way to calculate those odds.

Actually I find it quite easy to calculate. It isn't all that hard to assign a value. Lets start with"Do you have any piece of empirical evidence? if so I would like to examine it. I haven't seen any.

Second, what are the rational and logical argument that has stood up to rational examination? If you can make an argument for I would love to hear it. one of the most popular arguments of theist is the TAG argument and that has been trounced over and over again.

Third, there are the apologist who are noting more then sophist and ..ohh I'm going to use that word..disingenuous.
Then you have the final piece of it... is a matter of faith.
And all those religions can't be right.
I know Frank that you are too intelligent to throw Pasquale wager into the fray.

So those are my reasons and so far the likelihood that the god(s) posited exist are minimal at best because there doesn't seem to be any data in the plus column.

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Main_Page

many of my arguments are expressed more eloquently through this site posted above.

Quote:

I do, however, have some reason to suppose the god of the Bible, for instance, probably does not exist (is more likely a creation of men than an existing god divulging its existence to men).

Did you mean what I set out in (1) above…or (2).

And if (1)…how do you arrive there? What factors do you use to conclude as you do?

I also believe I have a profound understanding of human nature.
I trust myself. I trust my instinct and my intellect.I trust the rationale. I know that it isn't based on faith but on reason...good reason. I trust my experiences.
They have been tested. Philosophically speaking, though we disagree. I ask how can you not know... when we speak of reality?. That is something I can't comprehend: the idea that we can't know reality on any level.
And I guess that is something we will always disagree.

But if Knowing reality is my jump off point then you can understand why the supernatural has no meaning for me.
Why Mythology in this day and age serves no purpose for me either.
If you key in bad data into your computer do you really expect to get an honest and true answer? So let us weigh the evidence for and against the supernatural and let the chips fall where they may. But I have yet to see the evidence in favor of god(s) stand up to the test. If some one has some don't keep it a secret..point us to the way.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Up until about a month ago, she always identified herself as a theist.

I think I can officially say you've lost your mind.

I was a theist, but that goes back something like 20 years.

I am not an atheist, but I have not been a theist for decades.

1 Reply

@argome321,

Quote:

There are so many meanings for theism and atheism depending on period and time, but is there a law where we ourselves can't define them so that we can come to some agreement about what these words mean and how we should use them to have a constructive dialogue?

The problem I see with that is that people often try to redefine words as a disguised way of putting some point across. Semantics are not neutral, rather they are often part of an argument. I don;t need a new definition of atheism or agnosticism, unless somebody shows me what's wrong with the definition I use.

I can tell you what's wrong with your definitions: they are based on an artificial distinction between knowledge and belief; and they leave "strong atheists" (those who believe that there is no god) out of your definition of atheism. But this has been pointed out by layman already.

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

These guys taking over the thread are not saying anything particularly new and certainly nothing that has not already been argued to death on scads of other threads. Trolls, they are.

Well, Ed, ya know, not everyone has been here long enough to have participated in "scads of other threads." I can see that this thread is 600 pages long, and that tells me that anything anyone says here now has probably already been said in this very thread at some point in the past. I wouldn't know, for sure. I haven't, and don't plan to, read all 600 pages now.

Don't know why you call what we're doing here trolling, though. Not interesting to you, sure, maybe not. But "trolling?"

What's up with that?

2 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know