Atheists, smarter than religious people

Oddly, Frank is one of the most closed-minded individuals I've encountered here.

How would a word's definition in 1950 affect a debate in 2007?

DrewDad wrote:

How would a word's definition in 1950 affect a debate in 2007?

One of the points I made, Jackass...was that the changes were recent!

Try to wrap your mind around that thought.

DrewDad wrote:

Oddly, Frank is one of the most closed-minded individuals I've encountered here.

If that is so...it is not because I am close-minded, but because you would not recognize open-mindedness if it were biting you on the ass.

In these discussions I freely acknowledge when I do not know something...I always specify that I am guessing when I am guessing...I do not resort to guesses disguised as "beliefs"...and I do not stonewall when something I've said is shown to be wrong. I acknowledge those occasions (there have been several) without delay.

Sticking to one's guns is not close-minded!

So take your observation and stow it where it will not be bleached by the sun.

Although what can you expect from someone who identifies himself the way you do!

One of the points I made, Jackass...

And I add another question…the one I asked Set: Can you cite any dictionary publish prior to 1960 that defines atheist as anything but a denial of the existence of gods?

Frank Apisa wrote:

And I add another question…the one I asked Set: Can you cite any dictionary publish prior to 1960 that defines atheist as anything but a denial of the existence of gods?

From the 1911 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica:

ATHEISM (from Gr. a-, privative, and O€6, God), literally a system of belief which denies the existence of God. The term as generally used, however, is highly ambiguous. Its meaning varies (a) according to the various definitions of deity, and especially (b) according as it is (i.) deliberately adopted by a thinker as a description of his own theological standpoint, or (ii.) applied by one set of thinkers to their opponents. As to (a), it is obvious that atheism from the standpoint of the Christian is a very different conception as compared with atheism as understood by a Deist, a Positivist, a follower of Euhemerus or Herbert Spencer, or a Buddhist. But the ambiguities arising from the points of view described in (b) are much more difficult both intellectually and in their practical social issues. Thus history shows how readily the term has been used in the most haphazard manner to describe even the most trivial divergence of opinion concerning points of dogma. In other words, " atheism " has been used generally by the orthodox adherents of one religion, or even of a single sect, for all beliefs which are different or even differently expressed.

So, yes, "atheism" literally means "disbelief in god". But even in 1911, the usage of the term was generally not literal.

edgarblythe wrote:

timberlandko wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:

Agnosticism is giving in to a blind guess that god exists, to the extent of giving it a sort of credence, simply because of the difficulty of proving the negative. The atheist sees that god is a rabbit out of a hat and refuses to be duped.

Sorry, edgar, that's a straw man, just sophism. Agnosticism - legitimate agnosticism - makes no guess, one way or the other, pertaining to the existence, non-existence, possibility, or impossibility of a god or gods. Its not a matter of "... giving it a sort of credence, simply because of the difficulty of proving the negative", it is a very simple and honest matter of refusing to be duped by any purportedly conclusive proposition relevant thereunto. Honest agnosticism entails accepting, objectively and logically, what is shown by the evidence as opposed to endorsing a preference. "I/We don't know" is an honest, objective assessment, "There is/is not a god or gods" is a preferential, subjective guess.

You can dress a duck in all sorts of outfits, but it's still a duck. Inventing a concept out of blue air is simply that; inventing it out of blue air. Expecting somebody to seriously consider it is to be removed from reality. Waiting for evidence of god. What a laugh.

Depends on what you mean by 'evidence'.

If you mean physical, observable evidence, I may agree.

The whole notion of demanding 'natural' evidence of the 'supernatural' is rather absurd, isn't it?

Claiming to have eliminated the possibility, or reduced the probability of the existence of the 'supernatural' by touting the lack of 'natural' evidence is an exercise is the ridiculous.

Sorta like proving colors don't exist because 'I can't hear any colors.'

edgarblythe wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:

What amazes me about agnostics and the religious, they take a blind guess that there is or may be a god, then say atheists are making the wild guesses. It's like George Bush saying, we got to take Hussein out before he bombs Toledo.

Only an atheist could conceive of saying that something "may be"…is a blind guess!

Giving credence to somebody else's blind guess.

If you want to insist that saying "gods may exist"...is a blind guess...do so. The fact is that saying "gods may exist" is essentially identical to saying "gods may or may not exist."

By agreenig that the blind guessers may or may not have a point, you are giving aid and comfort to a fantasy.

How that can be conceived of as a wild guess is beyond me. I guess you have to be an atheist to understand that kind of reasoning.

Frank claimed that the word meant denying the existence of god when it entered the language. The Greek word, which can reasonably be rendered in Roman characters as "atheos," simply means "godless." Whether in 1950, 1911, or at any time in the last 2000 years, godless is the meaning of the word in the Greek, and it entered the language from the French, with that meaning. That does not mean that atheists necessarily deny the existence of god, although some might.

What is significant in this "debate," however, is that Frank can't let go of what he insists is the definition, because his claim to a "morally" superior position--and he has in the past used exactly that description of his position--collapses unless he can insist that both theists and atheists are indulging a belief. His position collapses in the face of the neither subtle nor obscure distinction between belief, and the absence or refusal to believe.

While I don't mind the distinction of one who is without god, but who at the same time doesn't haggle over the possibility of a god, I don't see it that way at all. They invented god from the imagination, simply because their emotions, or reasoning, told them there has to be one. An assertion without foundation. I don't need evidence to reject such a fiction totally.

edgarblythe wrote:

While I don't mind the distinction of one who is without god, but who at the same time doesn't haggle over the possibility of a god, I don't see it that way at all. They invented god from the imagination, simply because their emotions, or reasoning, told them there has to be one. An assertion without foundation. I don't need evidence to reject such a fiction totally.

I can accept that you don't need evidence for your rejection. However, do you have evidence of the rest of your claim? Specifically that God was invented from the imagination of emotional people without reason?

Intrepid wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:

While I don't mind the distinction of one who is without god, but who at the same time doesn't haggle over the possibility of a god, I don't see it that way at all. They invented god from the imagination, simply because their emotions, or reasoning, told them there has to be one. An assertion without foundation. I don't need evidence to reject such a fiction totally.

I can accept that you don't need evidence for your rejection. However, do you have evidence of the rest of your claim? Specifically that God was invented from the imagination of emotional people without reason?

Do you have evidence it wasn't?