Atheism

[Eudaimonist]

In my dictionary, an atheist means one who does not believe in anything which can not be supported by physical evidence.

That's not an atheist. That's a skeptic. Those aren't perfectly overlapping categories.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

You do not need to emphasize the "god". I don't.
In my dictionary, an atheist means one who does not believe in anything which can not be supported by physical evidence. It includes ghost.
So, if an atheist believed the existence of ghost, then he is not an atheist.

(I guess you know that ghost and god are in the same category for some major religions).

Ah I see.

The word you are looking for might be experimentalist, not atheist.

Dictionary:
Experimentalist:
Use of empirical or experimental methods in determining the validity of ideas.

Empirical:
Relying on or derived from observation or experiment

 

[Cabal]

Since I've been told here that an atheist cannot be defined as one who claims that there is no god (but believes that which he does not claim??), I asked if a Christian also is unable to be similarly be defined as one who claims Christ exists (even though he believes it).

Talk to a Christian. Their definitions are irrelevant to me and to the topic of atheism.

Your problem is you are insisting that a term which is used to describe multiple similar but subtly different standpoints only refers to one standpoint.

Wrong guy. I never mentioned "weak atheist." I spoke specificallly of dawkins-style atheists who tout the lack of empirical evidence as evidence that a non-empirical world does not exist.

I really don't know how many times I must reiterate that I addressed these remarks SPECIFICALLY to "dawkins-style atheists." I even use that very phrase about five times now in this thread.

Now surely you're not going to now CLAIM that Dawkins does not CLAIM that there is no god.

I didn't really need all that. I kinda already knew it.

Nevertheless, Dawkins is a fool for declaring his certitude that there is no god.

Again, if you actually knew what he was claiming (refer to the post made in this thread where his spectrum of theistic probability is referenced), you'd know that he doesn't claim there is definitely no god, rather he is not convinced by the arguments made so far and finds it unlikely that a convincing one will be made. He hasn't concluded outright that the non-empirical will never be shown to exist, merely pointed out that there is currently no reason to think it does.

 

[stiggywiggy]

A lot of people in Greece would have disagreed with you.

I doubt it. I have read a lot of writings by ancient Greeks and never ran across that. But perhaps you'd like to share what you found in regard to ancient Greek testimonies involving experiences with Zeus.

And many have seen Elvis since his "death" in 1977.

Sorry. That would not be a transcendent claim. These people think the empirical Elvis Presley is still alive.

Yes, both should be given equal weight.

I see. You're on record as saying we should give equal weight to the claims of Kierkegaard, Karl Barth, Jimmy Carter, George Washington, and millions of others, as we do to the claims of people who say they have seen Elvis.

Hopefully, most atheists are not that irrational.

 

[Eudaimonist]

You're on record as saying we should give equal weight to the claims of Kierkegaard, Karl Barth, Jimmy Carter, George Washington, and millions of others, as we do to the claims of people who say they have seen Elvis.

Hopefully, most atheists are not that irrational.

Do explain. Why should we discount the claims of people who have seen Elvis, and yet count the claims of people who have seen Jesus?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[hollyda]

Do explain. Why should we discount the claims of people who have seen Elvis, and yet count the claims of people who have seen Jesus?


eudaimonia,

Mark

I've seen Santa every year at my local mall since I was little. He's there now, actually. And there are witnesses. Lots of them. And many are ardent believers.

 

[stiggywiggy]

Do explain. Why should we discount the claims of people who have seen Elvis, and yet count the claims of people who have seen Jesus?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Wrong guy. I never said that anything should be "discounted." I merely pointed out the idiocy of giving equal weight to the testimony of millions, versus the testimonies of a handful.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Wrong guy. I never said that anything should be "discounted." I merely pointed out the idiocy of giving equal weight to the testimony of millions, versus the testimonies of a handful.

How did it go again something like..

"If a handful of people see a deadguy walking, we call it insanity. If a million people see a dead guy walking, we call it religion"

 

[stiggywiggy]

I've seen Santa every year at my local mall since I was little. He's there now, actually. And there are witnesses. Lots of them. And many are ardent believers.

Really? You and I hang out with a different circle of people. Personally, I've never met an adult who believes in Santa Claus.

 

[stiggywiggy]

How did it go again something like..

"If a handful of people see a deadguy walking, we call it insanity. If a million people see a dead guy walking, we call it religion"

I do believe that there are more than a handful of people who believe Jesus rose from the dead. Hands have only five digits.

Missed it by about 2 billion.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

I do believe that there are more than a handful of people who believe Jesus rose from the dead. Hands have only five digits.

Missed it by about 2 billion.

You really should stop to read the post you are attempting to comment on.
Feel free to try again.

You know what nevermind I'm just going to go ahead and explain it to you.

Hand full of people see the zombie= Elvish
Their mental state = Nuts

Million people see the zombie = Jesus
Thier mental state= Religion

Does that help?

 

[hollyda]

Really? You and I hang out with a different circle of people. Personally, I've never met an adult who believes in Santa Claus.

Please quote where I said the believers were adults. I don't recall writing it.

 

[KCfromNC]

I didn't really need all that. I kinda already knew it.

Nevertheless, Dawkins is a fool for declaring his certitude that there is no god.

You mean the Dawkins who identified himself with this quote?

"I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

Seems like he's saying the exact opposite of what you're putting in his mouth.

 

[Ken-1122]

Does REASON have a place here? I know of no one who ever claims to have experienced a transcendent fairy, yet I know that there are millions who claim to have experienced a transcendent Holy Spirit.

Popularity is not an indicator of the truth. Just because millions believe it doesn't make it true.

Should my lack of metaphysical certitude about this, lead me to give equal weight to both testimonies, i.e. ZERO, since I cannot empirically verify those testimonies?

I would be a fool to do so. And yet dawkins-style atheists seem to say that they have the same absolute certitude about the non-existence of God as they do about the non-existence of three-headed purple unicorns.

Ya know; if you wanna believe it, knock yourself out; but don't be surprised if someone else implies the same skeptism to your unsubstantiated claims of a trancended Holy Spirit as you apply to my unsubstantiated claim of trancended fairies.

Ken

 

[Cabal]

Do explain. Why should we discount the claims of people who have seen Elvis, and yet count the claims of people who have seen Jesus?


eudaimonia,

Mark

I think the point (not that I necessarily agree with it) is that one is transcendent, and the other is not.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I think the point (not that I necessarily agree with it) is that one is transcendent, and the other is not.

Which of course means that if something is untestable (transcendent) we can make whatever claims we want and no one can gainsay us.

Not.

 

[Cabal]

Which of course means that if something is untestable (transcendent) we can make whatever claims we want and no one can gainsay us.

Not.

Like I said, I personally don't buy it, but I'm not that familiar with arguments revolving around transcendent things. Did seem to be what separated the two kinds of claims according to stiggywig.

From what I have encountered of it though, it seems a little too good to be true, possibly even special pleading.

 

[stiggywiggy]

You really should stop to read the post you are attempting to comment on.

You really should elaborate on what you think I'm not reading, and why you believe that your words are going unread.

Feel free to try again.

Try what again? Reading your stuff? That OK, man. Once is fine.

You know what nevermind

Oh, OK.

I'm just going to go ahead and explain it to you.

Hand full of people see the zombie= Elvish
Their mental state = Nuts

Million people see the zombie = Jesus
Thier mental state= Religion

Does that help?

Your case? No, not at all. Your task now is to equate religion with nuts. That little semi-syllogism doesn't cut it.

 

[stiggywiggy]

Please quote where I said the believers were adults. I don't recall writing it.

I just assumed you KNEW that most believers ARE adults. My bad.

 

[stiggywiggy]

You mean the Dawkins who identified himself with this quote?

"I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."

Seems like he's saying the exact opposite of what you're putting in his mouth.

Seems like his "asumption" has become quite a dogma for him. He's made a career out of declaring his assumptions.