|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Dawkins is a Fool. God says so!
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
Good Lord. I'd have thought we were past ye old false dichotomy of faith in God vs faith in science. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I'm not sure that atheists have to find another story, in any case. They don't have to go round singing the praises of science or anything really. My whole family were atheists, and I don't think they had a narrative which 'explained' things. They got on with life, had kids, fought in wars, were active in trade unions, got sick, and died. I suppose some of those things involve stories, such as trade unions, but they are not all-embracing stories.
Put it another way - I don't think atheists are trying to solve a problem - there isn't one. Sounds like a projection to me.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief: quote:
quote:
What, pray tell, are you selling, other than nonsense?
You complained about my choice of words – I explained why I used them and you come back with this?
Kinda looks like I did, yeah. Why do you ask? Because I cannot see how it is either rational or relevant.
quote:
quote:
But, see, I really don't give a fuck what YOU think the basics of MY religion are. It's rather presumptuous of you to even try to tell me.
So what are the basics of your religion?
God in Christ, reconciling himself to he world and the world to himself. That’s jargon isn’t it? You believe in something which you define as the Christian God, you believe in something you define as Christ and you think that there are two separate steps to a reconciliation of some sort. I know I said basic but that’s threadbare isn’t it? What do you mean by God and Christ – how does this reconciliation occur, what caused it and why is it important?
quote:
quote:
I apologize that our religion doesn't suit your needs for simplemindedness, and makes itself hard for you to put into a simple box. We'll get right on that.
But at the root it is simple, and, IMO, it doesn’t make sense. Clearly religious people think so too because they construct a plethora of complexities (many of them mutually incompatible and/or unacceptable to other religious people) to try to explain what doesn’t work. In reality making something more complicated may hide the failure but it doesn’t fix it.
People make things complicated because they are people and people have an innate tendency to change things, either making them more complicated if they're simple, or more simple if they're complicated. It's in our DNA. I don’t think this is right – got any evidence for it? quote:
quote:
I suppose if you have a preconceived notion that religious people have something to hide, you will chalk this up to that. You appear to have a need to blame a lot of things on religious people, and make them look bad.I think there is a natural tendency to resist exposure of error through a process sometimes referred to as “bullshit”: it is by no means confined to religious people.
(Prediction: response: "No, they make themselves look bad when blah blah blah.")
And why my complications being unacceptable to some other religious person somehow shows them to be ... what? Why did you bring that up? What does it prove? What part does it play in your argument? Or it it just thrown in there for word count? It illustrates part of the difficulty (for me) in taking religion seriously – if Christians can’t agree about Christianity (or Muslims about Islam etc.) finding the true religion (were there one) would be like playing pin the tail on the donkey. quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
That's nice. Thanks for sharing. Who else would like to say what their opinion is without supporting it or arguing for it? Sarah, I see your hand up.
Technically the need to provide extraordinary evidence is incumbent upon those who make extraordinary claims.
Yawn. Is that the best you can do? You spout a bunch of nonsense, and then when called on it, go for the tu quoque. You're very good at it, I might add. But it is tiresome.
my position is that the basic (and generally common) concepts - quote:
God,
A loving god who creates the life he cares for knowing that he’s going to cast that dear soul into Hell (whatever that amounts to – it means at minimum deliberately making something that will suffer – rather like loving puppies by pulling their legs off . quote:
Heaven.
a concept which requires such modification of humans that they are no longer emotionally human, created by a god who needs adoration from those he claims to love. Unless you subscribe to the Mormon concept of Heaven - which is still highly unpalatable. quote:
Soul.
An insubstantial, unevidenced concept whose only purpose seems to be to provide snake-oil salesman with a sickness to cure. quote:
Prayer
Generally defined as asking a god who can only do good to do something else. That or flattering the deity because he’s so perfect he demands that you do so. quote:
Sin (Original
I’m unable to go to Heaven because something that was done thousands of years ago pissed off a just god who had prevented his creations knowing that there was a difference between right and wrong until after they’d done what was subsequently declared wrong. It's an odd idea of justice don’t you think? quote:
and non-original)
Sin is defined as a crime against God ; no God – no sin. quote:
Redemption
If there was an almighty god who wanted to put right things he perceived as being wrong he could do so without the charade of thirty years on earth terminating in a violent, humiliating blood sacrifice and a weekend trip to Hell – it’s called forgiveness and humans are supposed to do it so why not God? quote:
et al are all so contradictory and insubstantial that all religion based on them is equally dubious.
quote:
Since that ain’t going to happen I’ll make you an offer - if you wish to know how I support my opinions you, or anyone else who cares, can PM me and we can continue (no doubt much to the relief of Hosts) there.
Um, no. If you can't defend your position in public, I'm not interested.
Your turn then is it?
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
ISTM, both Hugh and Evensong have it skewed.
Hugh would seem to present that logic and reason lead to atheism. I know enough atheists to know that logic and reason are not necessarily handed out in every Atheist Welcome Basket.
Evensong would seem have it that atheists require a "story". I could present a large enough queue to shelve that, so the reptilian feather duster has that correct.
BTW, the most rational theological POV is Agnosticism, not atheism or theism.
And not, I not not meaning Buddhism, just simply agnosticism.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I thought that a lot of atheists are agnostic. I mean, they don't know that there is no God, they just don't have that belief.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Good Lord. I'd have thought we were past ye old false dichotomy of faith in God vs faith in science.
I am - are you?
This is a results based reality - Science gets results - Religion (generally) encourages irrational expectations and then fails to deliver - sometimes to the detriment of those who need the fruits of science.
ISTM that science and religion can only be incompatible. Religion places humanity at the apogee of natural existence - Science says we're an accidental and temporary blip on an insignificant, wet, rocky lump in a backwater of a massive natural universe. Two irreconcilable views which fuel differing approaches to problem solving. Science says "I wonder.....", gets the evidence as best it can, analyses it, draws conclusions, tests the results, gets others to test the outcome and, sometimes reluctantly, accepts its findings. Religion says - the answer is "god(s)" and somewhere, often despite massive erudition and much faultless reasoning, between the question and the answer there has to be something we can't comprehend.
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I thought that a lot of atheists are agnostic. I mean, they don't know that there is no God, they just don't have that belief.
Depends on the definition of God doesn't it.
A just, perfectly good, personal, caring, creator god - not for me. Hard atheism.
A supernatural being outside, and not interacting with, our natural universe; one which could have caused the singularity to expand rapidly - impossible to prove or disprove - therefore agnostic atheism
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I thought that a lot of atheists are agnostic. I mean, they don't know that there is no God, they just don't have that belief.
An atheist is certain and agnostic is uncertain, no?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
ISTM, both Hugh and Evensong have it skewed.
Hugh would seem to present that logic and reason lead to atheism. I know enough atheists to know that logic and reason are not necessarily handed out in every Atheist Welcome Basket.
Depends where you are when you start using your logic and reason doesn't it. Many better exponents than I use logic and reason to convince themselves of the correctness of a diverse range of religious beliefs. When I was a Christian my killer response (aged 12?) to anyone telling me that God didn't make the world would have been to demand to know who they thought did make it if God didn't. Now my basic position has changed - the question would be "how do you think the universe came about" - all discussion of "who" has to wait until the fact of a "who" has been established.
Logic and reason are much more likely to deliver us to a correct conclusion if we start from the right beginning.
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I thought that a lot of atheists are agnostic. I mean, they don't know that there is no God, they just don't have that belief.
An atheist is certain and agnostic is uncertain, no?
An atheist is one who has no belief in a god or gods. That's it - an absence of belief.
Hard atheism is the denial of god(s) entirely (which I consider as irrational as deism).
Agnosticism is the belief that we are unable to discern whether god(s) exist.
Agnostics are also atheists - atheists are not necessarily agnostic.
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Agnostics are also atheists - atheists are not necessarily agnostic.
I know agnostics who would disagree.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
They got on with life
A lesson that I would love the Shipmates keeping this damn thread alive to learn. Why are you all here? Can't you go out and frolic among the daisies? Or the traffic.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
I'm agnostic, and certainly not an atheist. This whole thread is crap.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Logic and reason are much more likely to deliver us to a correct conclusion if we start from the right beginning.
And who decides what that is, and based upon what?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Your turn then is it?
If that's how I defined all those words, I wouldn't believe either. I'm not going to go through them point by point because you've given polemics and insults rather than anything resembling support. And I have too much to do to get tied up in yet another bloody atheist's polemics.
Your post very much reminds me of a line from Steve Turner's admirable poem "Creed:"
We believe all religions are the same. At least the one we read was.
Most of the smears you present presumably have something to do with the religion of your youth that you rejected; they have precious little to do with mine. And it pains you that other people's religion doesn't fit into the box of the one you rejected; you've already bitched that Christianity was too amorphous. Clearly what you mean is that you want everybody to believe exactly as you did before you apostatized so you can hate their religious without having to actually think about them, or about how they're different from the religion you left behind.
You might want to put aside the discussing-with-theists thing until you get some of the bitterness out of your system. I have some very good friends, including close family members, who are atheists, and none of them come across like you do here. You seem to be more of an anti-theist than an atheist. Get over it.
[ 01. October 2014, 05:17: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
Just creeping in after reading pages 1 and 5 to say 'hear, hear!' to the posters I usually agree with. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Susan! Great to see you!
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Good Lord. I'd have thought we were past ye old false dichotomy of faith in God vs faith in science.
I am - are you?
This is a results based reality - Science gets results - Religion (generally) encourages irrational expectations and then fails to deliver - sometimes to the detriment of those who need the fruits of science.
ISTM that science and religion can only be incompatible. Religion places humanity at the apogee of natural existence - Science says we're an accidental and temporary blip on an insignificant, wet, rocky lump in a backwater of a massive natural universe. Two irreconcilable views which fuel differing approaches to problem solving. Science says "I wonder.....", gets the evidence as best it can, analyses it, draws conclusions, tests the results, gets others to test the outcome and, sometimes reluctantly, accepts its findings. Religion says - the answer is "god(s)" and somewhere, often despite massive erudition and much faultless reasoning, between the question and the answer there has to be something we can't comprehend.
So you really believe faith in God and faith in science are incompatible? Dude. Get over yourself. That's an extremely irrational a position to hold. History and reality does not agree with you.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm not sure that atheists have to find another story, in any case. They don't have to go round singing the praises of science or anything really. My whole family were atheists, and I don't think they had a narrative which 'explained' things. They got on with life, had kids, fought in wars, were active in trade unions, got sick, and died. I suppose some of those things involve stories, such as trade unions, but they are not all-embracing stories.
Put it another way - I don't think atheists are trying to solve a problem - there isn't one. Sounds like a projection to me.
"Getting on with life" is a story. The story accepted is simply an unexamined one that goes along with whatever cultural norm is currently the status quo.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
BTW, the most rational theological POV is Agnosticism, not atheism or theism.
And not, I not not meaning Buddhism, just simply agnosticism.
Agnosticism is not the most rational theological point of view. It's simply a rational view if the theologically rational POV does not necessarily move you.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
My bad. Let me qualify that. Agnosticism is the rational default position. I think Miriam Webster says it ok:
quote:
broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
Don't know what "ag" literally means but the root of the word comes from the Greek gnosis which means to know. I think literally it means unknowable which strikes me as "we can't know" but it usually commonly referred to as "I don't know". There is a difference theologically. The "we can't know" seems to include the assumption that God/s exist but we can't know of them or about them This fits with certain Christian strands of thought called apophaticism.
The " I don't know" is a more personal statement.
[ 01. October 2014, 10:14: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
HughWillRidmee: and what does Christianity offer – untestable stories of unrepeatable miraculous cures and five loaves and two small fishes.
You're dumb. Did you know that?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It's not 'ag', it's 'a', which is the prefix in 'agnostic'; as in 'atheist', 'a' means 'without'. See also 'amorphous', 'atypical', 'asexual', and so on, but not 'arise', 'await', 'awake', and so on. 'A' is a fascinating prefix in English, and I propose to deliver a ten page mini-dissertation on it, very soon, once I have made my libations to the great god of fire and lightning, Xolotl!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
Krister Stendahl laid out three rules that are helpful for discussions between people of different belief systems:- Let the believers define their religion, not their critics.
- Don’t compare your best with their worst.
- Always leave room for holy envy.
HughWilRidmee, you are constantly, consistently breaking rule 1. If you want to have a discussion with us, stop telling us what we believe. You're doing it in every single post. And every time you tell us what we believe, you're completely, utterly, gloriously wrong. This sets up strawmen that at least I have no interest in defending myself against. It's a dishonest way of discussing things.
If you really want a conversation with us, ask us what we believe, don't tell us.
And SusanDoris, your mindless cheering with everyone you agree with without even giving clues of understanding what they say, makes you look more stupid than the South end of a cow that faces North.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Wise words, LeRoc. Discussions between Christians and atheists often seem to fall foul of those prohibitions, especially, defining someone else's views. In fact, I often end up defending atheism, although I am not one, as some views of it strike me as spectacularly wide of the mark. But it goes the other way as well, certainly.
In fact, it seems practically impossible to have any such discussions, which are actually interesting, and say something new. Caricature and ignorance abound.
People often cite the Russell/Copleston debate as unusually interesting and non-caricaturing, so I think I will go off and have another listen or a read of it.
[ 01. October 2014, 12:03: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Always leave room for holy envy.
What does that mean, exactly?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Always leave room for holy envy.
What does that mean, exactly?
I don't know exactly, but I do like it. What I think it means is that whenever you have a discussion with someone who has another belief system, you leave room beforehand for the idea that there might be something in his system that you might admire, maybe even something you might be envious of. Whether this is the case or not, it does influence the way in which you'll be discussing things with this person, especially the way in which you'll formulate your questions.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariston
Insane Unicorn
# 10894
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Just creeping in after reading pages 1 and 5 to say 'hear, hear!' to the posters I usually agree with.
So coming back, not reading the thread, and not say anything worth saying?
Nor thinking anything worth thinking?
Par for the course for this thread, I suppose.
--------------------
“Therefore, let it be explained that nowhere are the proprieties quite so strictly enforced as in men’s colleges that invite young women guests, especially over-night visitors in the fraternity houses.” Emily Post, 1937.
Posts: 6849 | From: The People's Republic of Balcones | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Evensong: quote:
Agnosticism is the rational default position.
I agree. Both atheism and deism assert positions that are unprovable in material terms. And as much as atheists disagree with the idea, it's difficult for me to think of atheism as anything but another belief system on par with religion or spirituality. Their beliefs about the nature of reality just hang on different factors than those of deists. Deists can't prove the existence of God because he is outside material reality (even the Incarnation is presently unprovable). But they embrace deism philosophically and by personal experience. Atheists can't prove a negative. But they assert there is no God mostly because there is no material proof and also in reaction to what they see as the pretty silly and inconsistent beliefs of godbotherers. Agnostics just shrug and say, "We can't know" and leave it at that. Rational.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariston
Insane Unicorn
# 10894
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
'A' is a fascinating prefix in English, and I propose to deliver a ten page mini-dissertation on it, very soon, once I have made my libations to the great god of fire and lightning, Xolotl!
1. It's Greek—but you probably knew that already.
2. Xolotl likes human sacrifices, right? Or "human" ones, if you're going to give him someone who posted on this thread? Please, take 'em all.
[ 01. October 2014, 13:43: Message edited by: Ariston ]
--------------------
“Therefore, let it be explained that nowhere are the proprieties quite so strictly enforced as in men’s colleges that invite young women guests, especially over-night visitors in the fraternity houses.” Emily Post, 1937.
Posts: 6849 | From: The People's Republic of Balcones | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Evensong: quote:
Agnosticism is the rational default position.
I agree. Both atheism and deism assert positions that are unprovable in material terms. And as much as atheists disagree with the idea, it's difficult for me to think of atheism as anything but another belief system on par with religion or spirituality. Their beliefs about the nature of reality just hang on different factors than those of deists. Deists can't prove the existence of God because he is outside material reality (even the Incarnation is presently unprovable). But they embrace deism philosophically and by personal experience. Atheists can't prove a negative. But they assert there is no God mostly because there is no material proof and also in reaction to what they see as the pretty silly and inconsistent beliefs of godbotherers. Agnostics just shrug and say, "We can't know" and leave it at that. Rational.
Many atheists that I know would object to that. They say that they don't (and can't) assert that there is no God, but they have no belief in God.
There are 'hard' or 'strong' atheists who assert that there is no God, but in my experience, many atheists are agnostic atheists.
In fact, years ago, the Richard Dawkins forum (now defunct), did a survey, and a minority of people claimed that they knew there was no God; most were agnostic.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
And so the semantic battle rages.
It's like the bloody Dead Horses threads about 'homophobia'. Only those aren't on my patch.
If people want to call themselves atheist while adhering to a view that a great many people would call agnostic, they've only got themselves to blame frankly.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think it illustrates LeRoc's point above - that people who are not atheists quite often start to define atheism, without asking atheists themselves. So this idea that atheists 'assert' that there is no God is quite common; but many don't.
I suppose it is semantics, but also just courtesy, isn't it?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
People like HughWillRidmee can call themselves agnosts or atheists or whatever they want; whatever name they give themselves is fine with me. Like I said, I believe they have the right to define their own belief system (or lack of it).
But I'm afraid that if they start asserting things like "logic and reason lead to atheism", they'll have to define what atheism is in such a way that we'll agree with this definition.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, that sounds like strong atheism to me, since weak atheism (or agnostic atheism) simply lacks a belief in God.
I have a memory that Dawkins described himself as agnostic recently, causing some surprise, but in the various atheist communities, it would not raise an eyebrow, as the various senses of 'atheism' are often discussed, and 'agnostic atheist' seems a common term. On Dawkins' own scale, he is a 6.9, I think, where 7 = 'I know there is no God'.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
A point I forgot, is that the Daily Mail did an article saying, 'Shock, Dawkins admits to not being an atheist, but an agnostic', neatly illustrating the common confusion. He is both.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
Evensong: quote:
Agnosticism is the rational default position.
I agree. Both atheism and deism assert positions that are unprovable in material terms. And as much as atheists disagree with the idea, it's difficult for me to think of atheism as anything but another belief system on par with religion or spirituality. Their beliefs about the nature of reality just hang on different factors than those of deists. Deists can't prove the existence of God because he is outside material reality (even the Incarnation is presently unprovable). But they embrace deism philosophically and by personal experience. Atheists can't prove a negative. But they assert there is no God mostly because there is no material proof and also in reaction to what they see as the pretty silly and inconsistent beliefs of godbotherers. Agnostics just shrug and say, "We can't know" and leave it at that. Rational.
Many atheists that I know would object to that. They say that they don't (and can't) assert that there is no God, but they have no belief in God.
There are 'hard' or 'strong' atheists who assert that there is no God, but in my experience, many atheists are agnostic atheists.
In fact, years ago, the Richard Dawkins forum (now defunct), did a survey, and a minority of people claimed that they knew there was no God; most were agnostic.
I can go with that. I guess since most of the atheists I've heard talk about it appear more dogmatic in their assertions that there is no God, I've gotten a rather skewed view of atheism.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
Krister Stendahl laid out three rules that are helpful for discussions between people of different belief systems:- Let the believers define their religion, not their critics.
- Don’t compare your best with their worst.
- Always leave room for holy envy.
HughWilRidmee, you are constantly, consistently breaking rule 1. If you want to have a discussion with us, stop telling us what we believe. You're doing it in every single post. And every time you tell us what we believe, you're completely, utterly, gloriously wrong. This sets up strawmen that at least I have no interest in defending myself against. It's a dishonest way of discussing things.
If you really want a conversation with us, ask us what we believe, don't tell us.
That's all very well, but your first bullet point suggests that, if they are interested in dialogue, the Christians should actually volunteer their beliefs. But that rarely happens. Case in point on this thread with Mousethief in response to HughWillRidmee:
quote:
But, see, I really don't give a fuck what YOU think the basics of MY religion are. It's rather presumptuous of you to even try to tell me.
, but no attempt to offer what they are instead. Which suggests to me that the first bullet point is simply something to hide behind.
And then, if we atheists do say something about Christian beliefs (and remember many of us once were Christians, so you can't pretend we are as ignorant as you would like. And, Mousethief, I was a liberal Anglican, so I don't fit into your stereotypical backstory of the apostate.) we are told: - I don't believe that
- Christians are very diverse and you can't say "Christians believe..."
- Only an ignorant atheist (see above) would try to typecast us like that
- etc etc
But if, like Hugh WRM, we then say Christianity is amorphous, somebody like Lamb Chopped jumps in to say that actually: quote:
the basic shape of Christianity is exactly the same and thumpably solid in spite of minor variations in hide color and pattern.
So if we say one thing, it's the other. And if we say the other, it's the first after all.
And finally, just because the Christian belief cited isn't what you personally believe, that doesn't make it a straw man. It may actually mean that it is you trying the No True Scotsman/Christian get out.
Trying to debate with Christians is like trying to grapple with a jelly. Or to put it less diplomatically it looks as if whatever we say your response (collectively, not you personally, LeRoc) will be simply to contradict, even if it contradicts what you previously said, let alone what you would say to other Christians.
Even less diplomatically, do I think you debate in good faith? The jury's out (and that is being diplomatic.).
[ 01. October 2014, 22:33: Message edited by: Pre-cambrian ]
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Very few people debate on the internet, do they? There is a lot of point-scoring, and gotchas, and maybe now and again, some genuine discussion. Yes, I remember reading some 3 years ago.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
A point I forgot, is that the Daily Mail did an article saying, 'Shock, Dawkins admits to not being an atheist, but an agnostic', neatly illustrating the common confusion. He is both.
By the "common confusion", you mean the fact that a whole bloody lot of us think that having 2 different words is supposed to mean 2 different things?
Why on earth would you equate a-gnosis with a-theism? The whole point of a-gnosis is NOT to assert things one way or the other. If you're going to have agnostic atheists then you should have agnostic theists as well. Claiming that agnostics are a form of atheist is taking the middle ground and tipping it to one side.
It's like taking an opinion poll and using the "don't know" category as part of a headline about the percentage of people who won't vote for a political party.
[ 01. October 2014, 22:59: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
No, it's not saying that agnostics are a type of atheists, it's saying that some atheists are agnostic, that is, they don't claim to know there is no God. This is Dawkins' position, I think, and a lot of people that I know. There are also some 100% type atheists, who assert that there is no God.
I think there are agnostic theists - it sounds quite sensible to me. To have a belief that there is God, but not claim to know it.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Pre-cambrian: That's all very well, but your first bullet point suggests that, if they are interested in dialogue, the Christians should actually volunteer their beliefs. But that rarely happens. Case in point on this thread with Mousethief in response to HughWillRidmee:
quote:
But, see, I really don't give a fuck what YOU think the basics of MY religion are. It's rather presumptuous of you to even try to tell me.
, but no attempt to offer what they are instead. Which suggests to me that the first bullet point is simply something to hide behind.
Not really. The way I read this case, HughWillRidmee broke Rule 1 by asserting what mousethief's beliefs are, rather than asking him. It is quite natural for mousethief to react negatively to this (especially in Hell), because breaking Rule 1 does come over as offensive, or at least as insensitive. I've been reading mousethief's posts on the Ship for over 12 years now, and in my view he never tries to hide what he believes in. In fact, he's rather open about it.
quote:
Pre-cambrian: And then, if we atheists do say something about Christian beliefs (and remember many of us once were Christians, so you can't pretend we are as ignorant as you would like. And, Mousethief, I was a liberal Anglican, so I don't fit into your stereotypical backstory of the apostate.) we are told: - I don't believe that
- Christians are very diverse and you can't say "Christians believe..."
- Only an ignorant atheist (see above) would try to typecast us like that
- etc etc
The first two responses seem very reasonable to me. I wouldn't use the third response, and in fact I never have. And once again, instead of saying something about what Christians belief, you could ask us. I can assure you there are plenty of Christians of the Ship who would be more than willing to answer.
quote:
Pre-cambrian: And finally, just because the Christian belief cited isn't what you personally believe, that doesn't make it a straw man. It may actually mean that it is you trying the No True Scotsman/Christian get out.
It is something of a pet peeve of mine that many people on the Ship who invoke the No True Scotsman fallacy don't really understand what this fallacy means. This seems to be one of these cases.
quote:
Pre-cambrian: Even less diplomatically, do I think you debate in good faith? The jury's out (and that is being diplomatic.).
I'd be more than happy to debate my faith with an atheist who'd agree to abide with Stendahl's three rules. In fact I'd be thrilled by this, because I think I could learn a lot from such a discussion. And I'd readily promise to follow these rules too.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
Case in point on this thread with Mousethief in response to HughWillRidmee:
quote:
But, see, I really don't give a fuck what YOU think the basics of MY religion are. It's rather presumptuous of you to even try to tell me.
, but no attempt to offer what they are instead. Which suggests to me that the first bullet point is simply something to hide behind.
If you were reading the thread for content and not for things to pick fights with you might have noticed that I do come back and tell what the basics of my beliefs are. But don't let me stop a good rant.
I'm amazed you think there's something wrong with somebody saying "that's not what I believe" when someone else has cast them as believing something they don't actually believe. It's as if you think you really DO have a right to tell me what I believe. Which is just astounding.
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
I'd be more than happy to debate my faith with an atheist who'd agree to abide with Stendahl's three rules. In fact I'd be thrilled by this, because I think I could learn a lot from such a discussion. And I'd readily promise to follow these rules too.
Until one shows up who is so willing, I suggest you continue to respirate.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Until one shows up who is so willing, I suggest you continue to respirate.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I do think a big part of the problem is differing definitions. While science vs faith is certainly a false dichotomy, scientism or scientific materialism vs faith is not. Faith in scientific materialism of the brand Hugh seems to subscribe to is not compatible with faith in God. It is too narrow a viewpoint.
Theology too is a science:
quote:
A systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.
But scientific materialism seems to be only interested in the physical sciences with no interest in the rest. A poor philosophy.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Indeed, theology used to be known as "the queen of the sciences", because the subject of study was higher and greater than the subject of the other sciences.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Theology too is a science:
quote:
A systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.
But scientific materialism seems to be only interested in the physical sciences with no interest in the rest. A poor philosophy.
Right. Ladies and gentleman, on your right we have Einstein's Theory of General Relativity and the maths and physical evidence to support it. Please feel free to look through the repeatable experiments and try one yourself.
On your left, we have Religion with various, contradictory books and, erm, well....
So I suppose there is science and there is science.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Well, yes, and science is not philosophy. One of its great breakthroughs was to rid itself of philosophical speculation about reality and truth. It then became empirical and useful. No longer did people have to trust Aristotle's view that women have fewer teeth than men - they could count them!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
RooK
1 of 6
# 1852
|
Posted
The only things "science" should be used to describe are things to which the scientific method is fundamentally applied.
Posts: 15274 | From: Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
