- Oct 28, 2006
- 24,615
- 11,482
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
...I'm pretty sure I'm not all that smart, all things considered. If I was I'd probably be publishing.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
IMO, a common theme with many in philosophy, is they try too hard and think they are smarter than they actually are.
At least it is actual knowledge instead of a product of philosophy. Perhaps people would pay more attention to the esoteric stuff coming from philosophy if people defending it didn't pretend that an approach working was some sort of pejorative.
Or... now stay with me here... it could be the intellectually honest position to take when you don't have evidence that X is true, and you don't have evidence that X isn't true...
Personally, what I find dishonest is the insistence on shoehorning someone into a definition they wouldn't agree with for the sole purpose of avoiding the burden of proof.
Yes, I lack belief. I don't believe any god propositions that have been proposed to me, perhaps barring volcano gods or some such. But I am not saying that I believe no gods exist, unless someone wants to posit a god that's a married bachelor. That god, I will go on record saying, does not exist.
Indeed, I am very sympathetic to the agnostic position. I do not see what is intellectually honest about pretending that agnosticism and atheism are the same thing.
I also do not know why I have to justify the theistic part of my agnostic theism, and yet an agnostic atheist gets to conflate the two positions.
In that case, perhaps you should educate your fellow atheists. I have been accused around here of having an overly ephereal concept of God simply to avoid making verifiable claims, so shoehorning is certainly not one sided. I get tired of having to coddle atheists' sensibilities when they have no real interest of returning the favor.
You are agnostic towards volcano gods? That is certainly an interesting twist.
You mean as in "Why do you believe in a god?" Seems like a legitimate question, especially in this particular forum.
The only difference is that the answer to "Why do you believe in a god?" seems like it could have a multitude of answers, while "Why do you not believe in a god?" usually ends up being "Because I haven't been convinced by any theistic propositions."
So it is appropriate to ask why someone might accept theism but inappropriate to ask why they might not?
There are actually some interesting arguments for atheism out there--Schellenberg's divine hiddenness, for one, so I think you do atheism a disservice by insisting that it all amounts to the same thing and has nothing of any real interest to say. You're dipping straight into obscurantism with this sort of reasoning.
Of course it's appropriate, but like I said, the answer should always amount to "I'm not convinced by any theistic argument".
Are you still under the assumption that atheism means "believes no gods exist" even after I've mentioned that I don't work under that definition? You still seem to want to insist I take that position even though I don't (see the graphic in my signature for what I'm working under). If so, it seems to me that you're the one being intellectually dishonest.
As for having nothing of real interest to say... we're in the Christian Apologetics forum. The interesting things should be coming from those that claim a god exists. If you're looking for interesting things from people who believe no gods exist, then perhaps there should be a "Gnostic Atheist" forum. Although I don't know anyone who would be posting there...
I don´t find it hard to understand that someone just lacks belief in something. That the word "atheism" in its most common usage denotes just that (a lack of belief in deities) shouldn´t be any problem.I really do not understand this idea that atheism is a "lack of belief."
On behalf of my atheism, I wouldn´t even begin a debate, lest expect to win it. So if you seek a debate you would have to look for someone who makes a positive claim.It seems like an intellectually dishonest attempt to win a debate by refusing to engage at all.
In my use of terms, "non-theist" and "atheist" are synonyms. So if you have this problem with the term "atheist", feel free to think of me as a non-theist. Problem solved.I have always thought it best to distinguish between atheism and non-theism as positions for the sake of clarity--by watering down the definition of "atheism," you're really just making the conversation more difficult.
Being an atheist doesn´t keep me from having a lot of opinions on a lot of things, thank you.And making atheists look too uninformed to have any opinion at all, frankly.
I don´t find it hard to understand that someone just lacks belief in something. That the word "atheism" in its most common usage denotes just that (a lack of belief in deities) shouldn´t be any problem.
The question is: Do you want to address the person you are talking to, or would you prefer to talk to someone who isn´t there but matches your definition of "atheisT"?
It´s the definition most of those who you are talking to use. So you can pick your choices: Either address the stances of the persons you are talking to, or have a semantics discussions in order to avoid doing so.That's not the common or historical usage of the word "atheism," though. It is really quite a new definition.
Ok, you find it hard to understand. Which part do you need explained?I would find it very hard to understand how someone who has heard of Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny simply lacks a belief that such entities exist;
Well, this is the Christian Apologetics forum. It´s for Christians to make a case for their beliefs. The fact that you are unwilling or unable to make a case for your belief other than by attacking a hypothetical competing positive claim tells volums.In all honesty, no, I have no desire to discuss religion with people who define atheism as a lack of belief. There is really no point.
It´s the definition most of those who you are talking to use. So you can pick your choices: Either address the stances of the persons you are talking to, or have a semantics discussions in order to avoid doing so.
Ok, you find it hard to understand. Which part do you need explained?
Well, this is the Christian Apologetics forum. It´s for Christians to make a case for their beliefs. The fact that you are unwilling or unable to make a case for your belief other than by attacking a hypothetical competing positive claim tells volums.
Whatever. If you need someone claiming "gods do not exist" in order to be able to defend your faith, you will have a hard time finding one. It´s quite interesting, though, that your apologetics lose their power when you stand in front of someone who just lacks belief in gods. One would expect that the power of arguments for something do not depend on the person you are talking to.
Imo, you can tackle atheism (in whatever definition you prefer) until the cows come home - that makes no case whatsoever for the Christian beliefs.
Great point. And when a child becomes too old to 'Believe' in Santa Claus it runs hand in hand with 'Knowledge' claims...the more mature knowledge that it is ridiculous that in 1 night Santa would have time to enter billions of houses and spread out presents, the knowledge that nobody they know has ever seen him, even friends who deceitfully stay up late, etc. So they have knowledge based reasons to dump their belief. And I also remain fuzzy on the desire to want to avoid the word agnostic as if it's Kryptonite?? I know some proud agnostics.I would find it very hard to understand how someone who has heard of Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny simply lacks a belief that such entities exist; usually you only lack a belief about things you haven't yet considered.
It´s the definition most of those who you are talking to use. So you can pick your choices: Either address the stances of the persons you are talking to, or have a semantics discussions in order to avoid doing so.
Are you still under the assumption that atheism means "believes no gods exist" even after I've mentioned that I don't work under that definition?
I suppose that's fair. I am unconvinced by atheistic arguments, after all.
Ok as an admitted rookie to this battle between the semantics of 'Atheism', from me just reading in here let me ask this...it seems that it has been pointed out several times now that this modified definition of 'Atheism' originated by Anthony Flew in the 1970s, and that THIS was in fact the beginning of the 'Semantics Trickery.'
So let me simply ask this, do atheists in here dispute that? Do atheists in here claim that their current definition was held by people in 1965?
The more I study Philosophy, the more I'm annoyed by most of its practitioners. They're like people who fancy themselves experts in music theory, and then when they pick up an instrument are absolutely horrible at it.
Philosophy can be a very powerful tool in helping to navigate your life, but at the point at which you can't see the forest for the trees, well...
I said that the claim is that Anthony Flew reinvented the word in the 1970s. So I asked if the word did indeed have a different meaning in 1965. I would say that it's pretty straight forward where I'm going with this.1. Why should I care how people used language in 1965?
2. Do you believe all words must retain the meanings they had in 1965?
I said that the claim is that Anthony Flew reinvented the word in the 1970s. So I asked if the word did indeed have a different meaning in 1965. I would say that it's pretty straight forward where I'm going with this.
And I would actually assume that when I'm told a story from 1965 that the words I don't think that's true meant the same thing, and that the words I think that's true meant the same thing, and that the words I don't know either way meant the same thing.
So you are interested in discussing labels rather than the position of the person you are talking to. Ok.Given that the very definition is a matter of slippery semantics, I'm quite happy discussing that fact rather than letting people redefine atheism as agnosticism for rhetorical value, thank you.
Well, people try their best to explain it to you.The part where anyone would even think to describe their stance in such terms.
My agnosticism and my lack of belief in gods can coexist quite fine. So nothing´s being coopted or erased.I'm a strong agnostic, though a mystically inclined one who finds the case for theism much better than the case against it. I don't speak as an apologist here, but as an agnostic who is tired of seeing that position coopted and erased by atheists.
Words change their meaning all the time.Ok as an admitted rookie to this battle between the semantics of 'Atheism', from me just reading in here let me ask this...it seems that it has been pointed out several times now that this modified definition of 'Atheism' originated by Anthony Flew in the 1970s, and that THIS was in fact the beginning of the 'Semantics Trickery.' So let me simply ask this, do atheists in here dispute that? Do atheists in here claim that their current definition was held by people in 1965?
I really do not understand this idea that atheism is a "lack of belief."
It seems like an intellectually dishonest attempt to win a debate by refusing to engage at all
I have always thought it best to distinguish between atheism and non-theism as positions for the sake of clarity--by watering down the definition of "atheism," you're really just making the conversation more difficult.
There's really nothing wrong with saying you don't believe!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?