Atheism

[Davian]

im a strong christian in the lord i dont blieve in athesism

As atheism is not something to believe in, neither do I.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Does Monton refer to himself as the 'atheist' in the title of his book?

Here is his paper on the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial:

Is Intelligent Design Science? Dissecting the Dover Decision - PhilSci-Archive

Why would an atheist attempt to make a case for the Christian god?

I didn't read the article as it's not really relevant. He may or may not be calling himself an Atheist for proper reasons. Just as there are people that identify as Christian that don't fit into the definition of Christianity, or what society would consider Christian beliefs.

If he's making a hypothetical situation where a god may exist, that doesn't necessarily disqualify him as an Atheist. However, if he has a belief that there is a God of any kind, that by definition makes him a Theist, and no longer an Atheist.... even if he calls himself one.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The U.S. Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard strongly affirmed the individual teacher’s right to academic freedom. It also recognized that, while the statute requiring the teaching of creationism in that case was unconstitutional, “…teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction.”

But since teaching ID doesn't constitute a "clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction", the point is moot. ID is religion, and as such has no place in the science classroom.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

He obviously doesn't believe in God. He's an athiest! Can't you tell?

"This [ID] is a doctrine that I endorse, though I realize that not all atheists will endorse it. The reason that I endorse the doctrine is that (as I’ll explain in Chapter 3) I think there is some evidence for an intelligent designer, and in fact, I think there is some evidence that the intelligent designer is God." - Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design, p38

He promotes the view that there is evidence for the existence of God. That's not an atheist, my dear.

 

[Eudaimonist]

"This [ID] is a doctrine that I endorse, though I realize that not all atheists will endorse it. The reason that I endorse the doctrine is that (as I’ll explain in Chapter 3) I think there is some evidence for an intelligent designer, and in fact, I think there is some evidence that the intelligent designer is God." - Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design, p38

This is one very confused theist.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[razeontherock]

This is one very confused theist.

Never in my life could I have imagined the opportunity to say this:

they identify themselves as an atheist. I'm no expert on atheism, so I take their word for it, that they are an atheist. You're saying no atheist would ever say such a thing? That's the no true Scotsman fallacy

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Never in my life could I have imagined the opportunity to say this:

they identify themselves as an atheist. I'm no expert on atheism, so I take their word for it, that they are an atheist. You're saying no atheist would ever say such a thing? That's the no true Scotsman fallacy

I'm all for inclusive definitions, but an atheist who believes in God makes as much sense as a Christian who doesn't

 

[razeontherock]

We have all sorts of professing Christians that clearly don't believe in G-d. Then we get accused of the no true Scotsman fallacy. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, eh?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Never in my life could I have imagined the opportunity to say this:

they identify themselves as an atheist. I'm no expert on atheism, so I take their word for it, that they are an atheist. You're saying no atheist would ever say such a thing? That's the no true Scotsman fallacy

Can you be a Scotsman if you are Japanese and have never lived in Scotland?

The fallacy you are referring to deals with attempts to categorize something by criteria that aren't included in its definition. So, it may be that Americans generally like apple pie, and eating apple pie is associated with being American, that doesn't mean that anyone who likes apple pie is an American, or that someone who doesn't isn't one.

Likewise, an atheist doesn't hold to a belief in dieties, and a theist does. Belief status regarding deities is the essential definitional criterion for separating people into those categories. So, the author in question is a confused theist.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

Never in my life could I have imagined the opportunity to say this:

they identify themselves as an atheist. I'm no expert on atheism, so I take their word for it, that they are an atheist. You're saying no atheist would ever say such a thing? That's the no true Scotsman fallacy

So apparently thanks to this guy we need a new word for people who don´t believe in any god concepts.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Never in my life could I have imagined the opportunity to say this:

they identify themselves as an atheist. I'm no expert on atheism, so I take their word for it, that they are an atheist. You're saying no atheist would ever say such a thing? That's the no true Scotsman fallacy

No it's not...

If he's stating a belief that directly contradicts what he's labelling himself, that is not the no true scotsman fallacy.

For example, if I say I believe I am a flat earther who believes the world is round... then I'm not a flat earther.

Likewise, If I say I'm an Atheist who believes a God exists, I'm not an Atheist. It directly contradicts the definition of Atheism.

 

[Dave Ellis]

We have all sorts of professing Christians that clearly don't believe in G-d. Then we get accused of the no true Scotsman fallacy. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, eh?

Yes, but the no true scotsman fallacy doesn't apply to the person who clearly doesn't believe in God. It applies to the person who is calling them "not a real christian"

However, in this particular example, I still don't think the fallacy would apply. If someone doesn't believe in God, that goes against some of the core beliefs of Christianity.

A better example of the no true scotsman fallacy would be something like: A man decides to write an article in the local newspaper supporting Gay Marriage. Upon reading the news, another man exclaims that no Christian would ever write such a thing.

Shortly after, the man finds out the author of the article is actually a highly respected minister of a huge christian church. He then edits his reply to "Well, no TRUE Christian would ever write such a thing".


The point is, the author is actually a Christian. The reader simply doesn't agree with his stance on that issue, which has no impact on his Christianity... That's the fallacy.

 

[Dave Ellis]

So apparently thanks to this guy we need a new word for people who don´t believe in any god concepts.

I say we take the name "Gods" just to confuse people. That way we could define Gods as people that don't believe in Gods.

 

[createdtoworship]

"This [ID] is a doctrine that I endorse, though I realize that not all atheists will endorse it. The reason that I endorse the doctrine is that (as I’ll explain in Chapter 3) I think there is some evidence for an intelligent designer, and in fact, I think there is some evidence that the intelligent designer is God." - Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design, p38

He promotes the view that there is evidence for the existence of God. That's not an atheist, my dear.

oh he spends most of his time finding evidences for a designer. But He doensn't himself think they are conclusive. (thats why I think He is just in it for the money). But thats His prerogative.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

oh he spends most of his time finding evidences for a designer. But He doensn't himself think they are conclusive. (thats why I think He is just in it for the money). But thats His prerogative.

Then of course he's going to find evidence - he's getting paid for it. But that's a huge bias, one untempered by peer-review, rendering him useless as an example of an atheist who believes in ID - chances are, he's just in it for a quick quid.

 

[Jonathan95]

Colossians 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Don't study philosophy, it's sinful. It has nothing good to offer, it's foolishness.

1 Corinthians 3:19
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

1 Corinthians 1:21
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Don't study philosophy, it's sinful. It has nothing good to offer, it's foolishness.

Everyone should study philosophy, even if only to end up disagreeing with most or all of what one has read and pondered.

Ignorance may be bliss, but it is no virtue.

And intentionally choosing to be ignorant is foolishness to a great extreme.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Don't study philosophy, it's sinful. It has nothing good to offer, it's foolishness.

So, according to you, the statement "1 + 1 = 2" is a foolish thing to say, is sinful, and has nothing good to offer?

Philosophy underpins everything, from mathematics and logic to art and music. As Margaret Thatcher once said, "Europe was created by history. America was created by philosophy" - your own country is fundamentally rooted on philosophy, specifically the notions of liberty and freedom and justice for all.

When you so self-righteously condemn the wisdom of man as foolishness before God, and that therefore philosophy is sinful - that is philosophy. When you assert a belief in the trinity and pontificate on the crucifixion and salvation, when you ruminate on the nature of God, creation, and evolution, when you make a judgement call on the morality of abortion or interracial marriage or what have you - that's philosophy.

All sinful, right? Never done any good, right?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Colossians 2:8
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Don't study philosophy, it's sinful. It has nothing good to offer, it's foolishness.

1 Corinthians 3:19
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.

1 Corinthians 1:21
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

Quoting the bible to back up your point is about as useful as quoting Captain Kirk.

And yes, you should study many different philosophies. Some you'll like, some you won't. But all of them will help enlighten you as to how different people and cultures live.

 

[Jonathan95]

Quoting the bible to back up your point is about as useful as quoting Captain Kirk.

And yes, you should study many different philosophies. Some you'll like, some you won't. But all of them will help enlighten you as to how different people and cultures live.

Archaeology and science etc confirms the bible. Philoshophy will not enlighten, it's foolishness.

Don't be prideful and believe you know better than God. <<The verses I quoted from his Word.