Answers To Atheism

[Dave Ellis]

What is it then?

It's an position taken on a single question, that's it.

 

[Dave Ellis]

So you are non-theistic. Right, or wrong?

Sure, the two terms mean essentially the same thing.

 

[Elioenai26]

Sure, the two terms mean essentially the same thing.

Ok I appreciate it, I just wanted to make sure someone actually understood why I said I was going to use the term "non-theist".

 

[Davian]

You are not a theist are you?

No, but I do not identify myself as an atheist. Or a non-theist.

 

[Dave Ellis]

No, but I do not identify myself as an atheist. Or a non-theist.

How do you define yourself then?

 

[Elioenai26]

No, but I do not identify myself as an atheist. Or a non-theist.

But there is nothing logically incorrect with me using the term "non-theist" to describe your philosophy. I mean if you are not a theist, then you are non-theistic.

The terms are synonymous and using the term keeps me from addressing you in an incorrect manner.

 

[Davian]

How do you define yourself then?

In the context of discussions in this forum, ignostic. Igtheist may be more appropriate, but is just too awkward to write.

But there is nothing logically incorrect with me using the term "non-theist" to describe your philosophy. I mean if you are not a theist, then you are non-theistic.

The terms are synonymous and using the term keeps me from addressing you in an incorrect manner.

No, by those terms you are implying that I do not have a theistic position.

 

[Elioenai26]

In the context of discussions in this forum, ignostic. Igtheist may be more appropriate, but is just too awkward to write.


No, by those terms you are implying that I do not have a theistic position.

Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists. In a more specific sense, theism is a doctrine concerning the nature of a monotheistic God and God's relationship to the universe.

Your view does not entail either of the above, therefore you are non-theistic. Under the non-theistic umbrella falls Ignosticism, as well as many other self-defeating philosophies.

They are self defeating for the following reason(s):

Ayer’s Acognosticism or Noncognitivism / Ignosticism/Igtheism

As has already been noted, the principle of empirical verifiability as set forth by Ayer is self-defeating. For it is neither purely definitional nor strictly factual. Hence, on its own grounds it would fall into the third category of non-sense statements. Ayer recognized this problem and engaged in recovery operations by way of a third category for which he claimed no truth value but only a useful function. Verifiability, he contended, is analytic and definitional but not arbitrary or true. It is meta-cognitive, that is, beyond verification as true or false but simply useful as a guide to meaning. This is a classic but ill-fated move for two reasons. First, it no longer eliminates the possibility of making metaphysical statements. Rather, it admits that one cannot legislate meaning but must look at meaning of alleged metaphysical statements. But if it is possible that some meaningful statements can be made about reality, then we are not left with complete agnosticism and acognosticism. Second, can cognitively restrictive meta-cognitive statements be made without self-stultification? It seems not, for to restrict the area of what is meaningful is to limit the area of what could be true, since only the meaningful can be true. Hence, the attempt to limit meaning to the definitional or to the verifiable is to make a truth claim that must itself be subject to some test. If it cannot be tested, then it becomes an unfalsifiable view, a ―"blik" of its own. (Norman Geisler, Christian Apologetics, 1976 Baker Books)

Reply to Wittgensteinian Mysticism / Noncognitivism / Ignosticism/Igtheism

Ludwig Wittgenstein engages in a self-stultifying acognosticism. He attempts to define the limits of language in such a way as to show that it is impossible to speak cognitively about God. God is literally inexpressible. And that whereof one cannot speak, he should not attempt to speak thereof. But Wittgenstein can be no more successful in drawing the lines of linguistic limitation than Kant was in delimiting the realm of phenomena or appearance; for how can one know that God is inexpressible without thereby revealing something expressible about God? The very attempt to deny all expressions about God is an expression about God. One cannot draw the limits of language and thought unless he has transcended those very limits he would draw. It is self-defeating to express the contention that the inexpressible cannot be expressed. In like manner even to think the thought that the unthinkable cannot be thought is self-destructive. Language (thought) and reality cannot be mutually exclusive, for every attempt to completely separate them implies some interaction or commerce between them. One cannot use the scaffold of language and thought about the limits of reality only to say the scaffold cannot be so used. If the ladder was used to get on top of the house, one cannot thereupon deny the ability of the ladder to get one there.
(Norman Geisler, Christian Apologetics, 1976 Baker Books)

 

[Dave Ellis]

In the context of discussions in this forum, ignostic. Igtheist may be more appropriate, but is just too awkward to write.

How does that differ from Atheism? I don't really see where the differentiation is.

 

[Elioenai26]

Is God Imaginary? | Reasonable Faith

 

[Dave Ellis]

Is God Imaginary? | Reasonable Faith

Care to sum up the article in your own words?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Is God Imaginary? | Reasonable Faith

Well, I definitely see now where you're getting your bad definitions from...

 

[Dave Ellis]

Well, I definitely see now where you're getting your bad definitions from...

Because if I want to know what Atheists think... the first opinion I'd check out is William Lane Craig's.

 

[Genersis]

Because if I want to know what Atheists think... the first opinion I'd check out is William Lane Craig's.

Mr. Water Closet? Really?
I'll have to remember to check that link out in the morning.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Because if I want to know what Atheists think... the first opinion I'd check out is William Lane Craig's.

What I want to know is this...

WLC debates lots of atheists. Surely in all those debates he's learned that self-professing atheists view the term as meaning "a disbelief in a god of gods", rather than "a belief that a god or gods do not exist." The same goes for agnosticism.

Given the fact that he must know this, what's his reasoning for presenting on his website definitions that run counter to what atheists say, as well as dictionary definitions?

 

[Dave Ellis]

What I want to know is this...

WLC debates lots of atheists. Surely in all those debates he's learned that self-professing atheists view the term as meaning "a disbelief in a god of gods", rather than "a belief that a god or gods do not exist." The same goes for agnosticism.

Given the fact that he must know this, what's his reasoning for presenting on his website definitions that run counter to what atheists say, as well as dictionary definitions?

To purposefully mislead people who listen to what he has to say, so they'll give him lots of money is my guess.

 

[Davian]

How does that differ from Atheism? I don't really see where the differentiation is.

I am an atheist, in that I lack beliefs in deities, but I think ignosticim is more descriptive of my theistic position. You could call me an ignostic atheist, as others might identify as an agnostic atheist.

Elioenai26 still seems to still struggle with with the concept of atheism, wanting atheism to make a positive claim. It doesn't.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I am an atheist, in that I lack beliefs in deities, but I think ignosticim is more descriptive of my theistic position. You could call me an ignostic atheist, as others might identify as an agnostic atheist.

Elioenai26 still seems to still struggle with with the concept of atheism, wanting atheism to make a positive claim. It doesn't.

Ah, Gotcha.... Fair enough, thanks!

 

[Davian]

Theism, in the broadest sense, is the belief that at least one deity exists. In a more specific sense, theism is a doctrine concerning the nature of a monotheistic God and God's relationship to the universe.

Your view does not entail either of the above, therefore you are non-theistic.

I did not say otherwise. I said, by those terms you are implying that I do not have a theistic position.

Under the non-theistic umbrella falls Ignosticism, as well as many other self-defeating philosophies.

They are self defeating for the following reason(s):

Ayer’s Acognosticism or Noncognitivism / Ignosticism/Igtheism

As has already been noted, the principle of empirical verifiability as set forth by Ayer is self-defeating. For it is neither purely definitional nor strictly factual. Hence, on its own grounds it would fall into the third category of non-sense statements. Ayer recognized this problem and engaged in recovery operations by way of a third category for which he claimed no truth value but only a useful function. Verifiability, he contended, is analytic and definitional but not arbitrary or true. It is meta-cognitive, that is, beyond verification as true or false but simply useful as a guide to meaning. This is a classic but ill-fated move for two reasons. First, it no longer eliminates the possibility of making metaphysical statements. Rather, it admits that one cannot legislate meaning but must look at meaning of alleged metaphysical statements. But if it is possible that some meaningful statements can be made about reality, then we are not left with complete agnosticism and acognosticism. Second, can cognitively restrictive meta-cognitive statements be made without self-stultification? It seems not, for to restrict the area of what is meaningful is to limit the area of what could be true, since only the meaningful can be true. Hence, the attempt to limit meaning to the definitional or to the verifiable is to make a truth claim that must itself be subject to some test. If it cannot be tested, then it becomes an unfalsifiable view, a ―"blik" of its own. (Norman Geisler, Christian Apologetics, 1976 Baker Books)

Reply to Wittgensteinian Mysticism / Noncognitivism / Ignosticism/Igtheism

Ludwig Wittgenstein engages in a self-stultifying acognosticism. He attempts to define the limits of language in such a way as to show that it is impossible to speak cognitively about God. God is literally inexpressible. And that whereof one cannot speak, he should not attempt to speak thereof. But Wittgenstein can be no more successful in drawing the lines of linguistic limitation than Kant was in delimiting the realm of phenomena or appearance; for how can one know that God is inexpressible without thereby revealing something expressible about God? The very attempt to deny all expressions about God is an expression about God. One cannot draw the limits of language and thought unless he has transcended those very limits he would draw. It is self-defeating to express the contention that the inexpressible cannot be expressed. In like manner even to think the thought that the unthinkable cannot be thought is self-destructive. Language (thought) and reality cannot be mutually exclusive, for every attempt to completely separate them implies some interaction or commerce between them. One cannot use the scaffold of language and thought about the limits of reality only to say the scaffold cannot be so used. If the ladder was used to get on top of the house, one cannot thereupon deny the ability of the ladder to get one there.
(Norman Geisler, Christian Apologetics, 1976 Baker Books)

Again, what you cut and paste is faulty: "God is literally inexpressible" - only if one presupposes that such a deity actually exists.

And, if one is talking about modelling reality through scientific methodology, these "problems" do not apply, and it is not 'self-defeating'.

 

[variant]

I find it quite ironic how offensive and indignant atheists get when their unsubstantiated views are challenged and yet, when they challenge a Christian's views, which are the only one's that have a basis in rational, logical, reality, they seem confused as to how they could be offended?

What I find ironic are the unsupported assertions of rationality by you.

This all started with you and others trotting out an unsupported claim about and argueing as if it were pure fact that I had to disprove (which sounds familiar do you use this fallacy often?).

You didn't challange my views with facts you challanged my facts with assertions...

This advocation of a hypocritical double-standard is not becoming of men and women who pride themselves on being objective.

Thanks for not replying to a thing I said. It makes dismissing your post easier.

People may turn to self deception and conforting lies if they want but you can't expect not to be called out on it.

Yes, not falling into the fallacy of believeing what I find more conforting makes me more objective. You and others have essentially admitted this point.