| fredonly |
| Posted 04/28/11 at 08:31 PM | Reply with quote #16 |
|
The complaints I'm reading about the semantics tells me that you guys really don't understand atheism. There are very few, if any, atheists who absolutely deny the existence of God. Anyone who has thought about it knows that it is impossible to prove God does not exist. Atheists simply do not believe in God.
It seemed to me Craig brought up "schmatheism" because he wanted to discuss the problems with the belief that there is no god. I don't think he dealt well with the notion that "I don't know" is a perfectly logical answer. Craig seems to be of the camp that ANY answer is better than NO answer. I beg to differ with this view.
RobertH's comment:
Quote: gives really good arguments and defends them exceedingly well. So, once an agnostic knows this stuff it would indeed be harder to be an agnostic because now that person knows of the arguments (to some degree) and the counter rebuttals (to some degree).
|
| Loading... | |
| Lion_IRC |
| Posted 05/03/11 at 01:45 AM | Reply with quote #17 |
|
God - Yes?
God - No?
Take your pick. But if you arent decided, dont appoint yourself as a spokesperson or debater for a position you dont really hold.
As a word, "atheism" is structurally related to the idea it negates.
Pretend atheists should read real atheists like Michel Onfray who at least professes something close to a developed atheology
(...and call themselves shmatheists until then.)
|
| Loading... | |
| TheQuestion |
| Posted 05/03/11 at 01:50 AM | Reply with quote #18 |
|
The choices in the poll tell you pretty much everything you need to know about WLC's followers.
Quote: Originally Posted by fredonly
The complaints I'm reading about the semantics tells me that you guys really don't understand atheism. There are very few, if any, atheists who absolutely deny the existence of God.
Well said. WLC's attempts to misrepresent atheism and just flat out ignore agnosticism make his followers claims of his brilliance somewhat less believable.
Quote: Originally Posted by Lion_IRC
As a word, "atheism" is structurally related to the idea it negates.
Wow, that's a wank of a sentence.
Quote: Originally Posted by Lion_IRC
Prtend atheists should read real atheists like Michel Onfray who at least professes something close to a developed atheology
"pretend"? Are you trying to appear ridiculous in the fewest words possible? Because you obviously aren't here to do any reasoning.
|
| Loading... | |
| GRWelsh |
| Posted 05/22/11 at 12:54 PM | Reply with quote #19 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by Lion_IRC
Take your pick. But if you arent decided, dont appoint yourself as a spokesperson or debater for a position you dont really hold.
But is it unfair for us to put the burden on proof on people who claim that leprechauns, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster and/or gray aliens who abduct people are true? Are there supernatural or pseudoscientific claims that you don't accept because you feel there isn't sufficient evidence to convince you? If you aren't convinced those things exist, do you accept the burden to prove they don't exist?
Are you a hard aleprechaunist, or a soft aleprechaunist? Are you perhaps an anti-leprechaunist? Why do you deny them? Do you hate them? Are you biased against them, and does that bias color your evaluation of any testimony or evidence? Blah blah blah.
Or, would you simply say, "I don't believe in leprechauns"?
|
| Loading... | |
| emailestthoume |
| Posted 07/02/11 at 03:36 AM | Reply with quote #20 |
|
Quote:
Are you a hard aleprechaunist, or a soft aleprechaunist? Are you perhaps an anti-leprechaunist? Why do you deny them? Do you hate them? Are you biased against them, and does that bias color your evaluation of any testimony or evidence? Blah blah blah.
Or, would you simply say, "I don't believe in leprechauns"?
If you just apriori assume your atheism is the only rational position and that anyone who thinks otherwise like someone who believes in leprechauns, this would work. However, you have no right to make that apriori judgment unless you believe in blind faith. If this is not an apriori judgment, then you are assuming some argument, and so are actually arguing for God's non-existence, or the belief that considering God's existence is irrational.
|
| Loading... | |
| gleaner63 |
| Posted 07/17/11 at 10:36 PM | Reply with quote #21 |
|
RobertH's comment:
Quote: gives really good arguments and defends them exceedingly well. So, once an agnostic knows this stuff it would indeed be harder to be an agnostic because now that person knows of the arguments (to some degree) and the counter rebuttals (to some degree).
Or as WLC likes to say, "BIG, BAD BILL CRAIG"  .
|
| Loading... | |
| Alexander |
| Posted 09/06/11 at 12:45 AM | Reply with quote #22 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by silentmatt
I find Craig's point very potent when he points out that the redefinition of "atheism" to simply meaning "lack of belief in God" reduces atheism to a mere psychological description, not a set of propositions that one can hold or defend. This redefinition of "atheism" is consistent both with agnosticism and classical "god-doesn't exist" atheism.
The arguments over the definition of atheism are a bit strange to me. Someone describes what they believe, and then they say that they describe themselves as an atheist. Christians respond to this by saying that isn't really atheism, therefore this person has to say that he knows God doesn't exist or at least that he asserts that God doesn't exist. Wouldn't it make more sense to just comment on what they actually believe rather than what they call it? it seems like Christians objection to this is that it makes debating harder.
Most atheists are "atheist" towards theism and find all religious claims to be bogus, but take more of a, "wait and see" attitude with the origin of the universe, but based on observations of the world around us there isn't much reason to expect the explanation of the origin of the universe to be anything but natural.
Personally, I find it fairly uncontroversial to say, "I'm an atheist, I don't believe in god," but for whatever reason people feel the need to posture over this. I tend to agree with Sam Harris in that it's a bit absurd that we have to label it at all.
|
| Loading... | |
| GreatPumpkin |
| Posted 02/21/12 at 02:26 PM | Reply with quote #23 |
|
Quote: Originally Posted by GRWelshI think the whole argument about what atheism does mean, or should mean, usually boils down to an ulterior motive, rather than an attempt at precision. The ulterior motive is apparent: it is to establish Burden of Proof. The theist desperately wants to avoid burden of proof.
I have no problem with the typical Christians definition of atheism. ("The position that no God exists").
There is no God, and just because my arguments are as equally as 'unproveable' as the theists doesn't make me wrong. It makes that position a tenuously held belief, like the theists. It's just a belief.
The fact that I care that my beliefs are right lead me to (hopefully) understand the complexity of the issue and relize that in order to make a strong stance ("God does not exist") I need a theist to strap up and give me the proper, coherent definition of the God they are talking about.
So far, in the history of the Universe, no coherent definition has been shown to cohere to reality. Lot's of hypotheses... no verifications. |
| Loading... | |
| Blake1960 |
| Posted 02/24/12 at 01:01 PM | Reply with quote #24 |
|
Accuracy and honesty matter, especially when asserting a point of view as in an irenic substantive debate.
It is entirely accurate that non-belief is merely a characterization of a psychological state and a negative one at that.
The definite point of view that non-belief implies is either agnosticism or atheism, respectively that one does not know if G-d exists (unknowing/ignorance), or that G-d does not exist, (disbelief in G-d).
Non-belief (unknowing/ignorance) is different from dis-belief (asserting non-existence) which implies a definite assertion. One is atheism; the other agnosticism.
Honesty, accuracy, and truth matter.
The intellectually cowardly hide behind semantics to avoid asserting and thus having to defend a definite position. Such intellectual cowards ought not be permitted to pollute irenic and substantive forums of discussion. They are almost always disingenuous, combative, and trifling.
|
| Loading... | |
