Originally posted by Stigma
I see. TBH as far as political life goes, Christians are by default secular, though.
Lol, no, I wouldn't say so. Believe it or not, Christianity had not always been on board with the whole separation of church and state deal.
Secularism can be argued to be the achievement of Christianity, or at least, Christianity can be said to lay the foundation for secular politics. Thus, I am not sure if Atheism and Secularism are more closely tied than Christianity and Secularism.
Why am I suddenly getting the feeling you made this thread as some way to kiss your own ass and credit secularism to your religion? 😐
...in any case, that has nothing to do with what I said, so I'm moving on.
Also, if you don’t mind, can you tell me what you think about this definition of a Theist."Theists believe in God" and "Theists have a belief in God."
Can you tell me how do you consider these statements and their meaning?
I can't say I see a difference of any significance between the two phrasings. Could you give up on trying to be cryptic and give me an idea of the point you're trying to make, here?
Sure. But I am not convinced it is impossible to determine who is right, though.
😂 Well of course you think you know what's right and true regarding the divine, you're a theist.
There are many things that are either impossible to measure or abstract, yet they exist in the cultural matrix. Not sure why the idea of God would be different.
Then go ahead and give me an example, so I can show you the difference.
So you can posit your beliefs in relation to the concept of God, correct?
What beliefs are you referring to, specifically?
Originally posted by NewGuy01
Lol, no, I wouldn't say so. Believe it or not, Christianity had not always been on board with the whole separation of church and state deal.
Originally posted by NewGuy01
Why am I suddenly getting the feeling you made this thread as some way to kiss your own ass and credit secularism to your religion? 😐
Originally posted by NewGuy01
I can't say I see a difference of any significance between the two phrasings. Could you give up on trying to be cryptic and give me an idea of the point you're trying to make, here?
I am happy to see you share my view that these two assertions have the same meaning.
So may I ask you this:
The statements “Atheists do not believe in God” and “Atheists do not have a belief in God” surely mean the same, given the precedence we established.
Originally posted by NewGuy01
😂 Well of course you think you know what's right and true regarding the divine, you're a theist.
Originally posted by NewGuy01
Then go ahead and give me an example, so I can show you the difference.
Originally posted by NewGuy01
What beliefs are you referring to, specifically?
So my question is this, do you think the statement “God exists” is correct in the sense that it properly describes reality?
Right...? That does not undermine the fact that Christianity can be argeud to be the driving force behind the rise of Secularism.
You're right, it doesn't. It does, however, undermine the claim that "Christians are by default secular," which is what I addressed.
I am happy to see you share my view that these two assertions have the same meaning.So may I ask you this:
The statements "Atheists do not believe in God" and "Atheists do not have a belief in God" surely mean the same, given the precedence we established.
Yeah, I figured this is what you were aiming for. Your comparison indicates that you don't understand the nuance behind what I said, though.
The lines Atheists assert that there is no God(your words) and Atheists lack belief in God(my words) are not equivalent to the ones you've presented me here. The former implies that atheists purport to know that an intelligent creator behind the universe couldn't exist. But not all atheists are comfortable making bold assertions concerning the origins of the universe, of which we currently understand too little.
However, despite this, we still lack belief, or if you prefer, do not believe in a God. That is because we see no evidence that compels us to believe such a being actually exists.
Just on the last page you said that Atheists think there are no good reasons to believe in God. Surely this falls under the category of "knowing best." I don't see any difference between Theists and Atheists here.
You really seem to be fond of making false equivalencies.
I've mentioned Justice as an ideal that functions in culture. Would you say it is something measurable?
Maybe not. But I also wouldn't say justice literally exists.
Originally posted by The Ellimist
This is usually true, but there are a few atheists who want to include explicitly Christian elements in the government because they find them socially useful. They're in the minority though.
Which "Values" would those be?
And yeah. I can understand that....Seeing as how Atheists really don't have any Values of their own that they didn't steal from others.
Originally posted by NewGuy01
You're right, it doesn't. It does, however, undermine the claim that "Christians are by default secular," which is what I addressed.
“Christians are by default secular” and “Christianity can be argued to be a driving force behind secularism” are correlated claims. I assume you are aware of the dichotomy of the secular and the sacred that Christianity introduced in socio-cultural matrix of the Western civilization? It quite self-evidently points to the truth of these claims.
Originally posted by NewGuy01
Yeah, I figured this is what you were aiming for. Your comparison indicates that you don't understand the nuance behind what I said, though.
I am well aware of this technique implemented vehemently by New Atheists. It just does a disservice to the Atheists position, unless of course intellectual coherence is not their aim.
When it comes to the definition of Atheism that you presented thus far, it looks like this:
Originally posted by NewGuy01
Not necessarily. There's no reason a god couldn't exist,
Originally posted by NewGuy01
but rather that we no reason to assume that one does.
Originally posted by NewGuy01
The lines Atheists assert that there is no God(your words) and Atheists lack belief in God(my words) are not equivalent to the ones you've presented me here. The former implies that atheists purport to know that an intelligent creator behind the universe couldn't exist. But not all atheists are comfortable making bold assertions concerning the origins of the universe, of which we currently understand too little.
Originally posted by NewGuy01
However, despite this, we still lack belief, or if you prefer, do not believe in a God. That is because we see no evidence that compels us to believe such a being actually exists.
In a nutshell, all of this seems to be the epitome of wanting to eat the cake and have it too. Which one is it? Are you a “bold” Atheist or, shall I say, a timid one. 🙂
I am in favor of clearly stating the position and premises, therefore let us go with classical categories in order to have an intelligible debate:
1. Theism: A. there are good arguments for Theism; B. there are no good arguments for Atheism
2. Atheism: A. there are good arguments for Atheism, B. there are no good arguments for Theism
3. Agnosticism: A. there are no good arguments for Atheism; B. here are no good arguments for Theism.
You seem to think that by asserting, roughly speaking, “there are no good arguments for Theism” that your job is done as an Atheist. But this is also a part of the claim of Agnosticism. What differentiates them is 2 A. and 3 A respectively. So which one are you?
Another way of looking at it is this: Do you think that position “I am a Theist because there are no good arguments in favor of Atheism” is intellectually sound?
BTW I myself subscribe to 1 A and 1 B, obviously.
Originally posted by NewGuy01
You really seem to be fond of making false equivalencies.
I am also not sure what exactly are you arguing here:
- Theists uphold their position because they think it is the correct one.
- Atheists uphold their position because they think it is the correct one.
- Both could be said to think that they “know better” than others do.
Unless you want to claim that subscribing to the Atheist view of reality means one does not necessarily think it is a better position that the other possible options. Then the question arises: why subscribe to Atheism at all?
But honestly I am well aware this is not how Atheists conduct themselves. They show certainty in their position as many examples illustrate, among them Dawkins, Hitchens, or Harris, who definitely made a name for themselves on the principle of “knowing better” than Theists.
Originally posted by NewGuy01
Maybe not. But I also wouldn't say justice literally exists.
However, I think we can agree that the concept of justice exists in culture, as in, it functions in culture as an abstract ideal. And you seem to already agree that abstract ideals are accessible by human intellect to be analyzed.
Which brings me to my question that you neglected to answer before. Honestly even if we gave up on all previous points this one seems to me to be crucial for our debate:
Well, you specifically said that you understand the concept of God, as in, you understand the question “Does God exist?”. So that means you are familiar with the concept. I take it you are able to consider how your convictions on the nature of reality can be oriented in regards to the idea of God.So my question is this, do you think the statement “God exists” is correct in the sense that it properly describes reality?
Originally posted by Stigma
I am happy to see you share my view that these two assertions have the same meaning.So may I ask you this:
The statements “Atheists do not believe in God” and “Atheists do not have a belief in God” surely mean the same, given the precedence we established.
No, they do not. The former affirms there is no god, the latter denies there is a god.
Originally posted by Stigma
I am also not sure what exactly are you arguing here:- Theists uphold their position because they think it is the correct one.
- Atheists uphold their position because they think it is the correct one.
- Both could be said to think that they “know better” than others do.Unless you want to claim that subscribing to the Atheist view of reality means one does not necessarily think it is a better position that the other possible options. Then the question arises: why subscribe to Atheism at all?
But honestly I am well aware this is not how Atheists conduct themselves. They show certainty in their position as many examples illustrate, among them Dawkins, Hitchens, or Harris, who definitely made a name for themselves on the principle of “knowing better” than Theists.
One does not have to believe he has the correct answer to not be convinced that you do.
Imagine a jar of marbles. The theist holds that there are an even number of marbles in the jar. The atheist is not convinced that the number is even. However, it does not follow from this that he holds that the number is odd either.
The atheist is not claiming to "know better" than the theist, nor is he even making a claim about the number of marbles in the jar. He is only stating that he is not convinced that the claim of the theist is correct.
Why subscribe to Atheism at all? Because the appropriate time to hold a belief is when it can be demonstrated to be true and independently verified by others. Because the null hypothesis is the default position, and the correct one.
At worst, Atheists conduct themselves as if they have a higher standard of evidence than you do, and they do.
“Christians are by default secular” and “Christianity can be argued to be a driving force behind secularism” are correlated claims. I assume you are aware of the dichotomy of the secular and the sacred that Christianity introduced in socio-cultural matrix of the Western civilization? It quite self-evidently points to the truth of these claims.
You can twist it however you like, but one of those statements is still empirically false, regardless of the validity of the other.
I am well aware of this technique implemented vehemently by New Atheists. It just does a disservice to the Atheists position, unless of course intellectual coherence is not their aim.
The aim is to be intellectually consistent. Making claims that we have no way of proving is hypocritical, not to mention a waste of time.
In a nutshell, all of this seems to be the epitome of wanting to eat the cake and have it too. Which one is it? Are you a “bold” Atheist or, shall I say, a timid one.
nice b8 m8
1. Theism: A. there are good arguments for Theism; B. there are no good arguments for Atheism
2. Atheism: A. there are good arguments for Atheism, B. there are no good arguments for Theism
3. Agnosticism: A. there are no good arguments for Atheism; B. here are no good arguments for Theism.You seem to think that by asserting, roughly speaking, “there are no good arguments for Theism” that your job is done as an Atheist--
--and it is. Period.
But this is also a part of the claim of Agnosticism. What differentiates them is 2 A. and 3 A respectively. So which one are you?
Well for starters, you've misdefined agnosticism. The word "gnostic" comes from the greek word gnosis, which means knowledge, usually referring to divine knowledge. Gnostics claim to have divine knowledge. Agnostics claim to have no divine knowledge. In other words, someone who is agnostic finds the answer to the question, "does God exist," to be unknowable. Most people take this to mean that agnostics sit between theists and atheists, but this isn't true. Theism and atheism pertain to personal belief, whereas gnosticism and agnosticism pertain to personal knowledge.
So answer your question: I'm an agnostic and an atheist; I'm entirely unconvinced that there's a god, but neither do I purport to know either way.
Spoiler:
Oh, and your definition of atheist is wrong again, too. I'm not going to go into it again, though, so feel free just to reread my previous post.
Another way of looking at it is this: Do you think that position “I am a Theist because there are no good arguments in favor of Atheism” is intellectually sound?
No, because then your beliefs would depend on atheists' ability to prove a negative. facepalm
I am also not sure what exactly are you arguing here:- Theists uphold their position because they think it is the correct one.
- Atheists uphold their position because they think it is the correct one.
- Both could be said to think that they “know better” than others do.
I really hope you're not sure, because if you are it means you're intentionally taking my words out of context. Of course atheists don't "know better" about the will of God, we don't even think god is real.
But hey, let's take a couple steps back. Why don't you actually try and answer a question for once in this conversation. Say the Holy Bible and the Qu'ran, which both purport to be the word of God, contradict each other. How exactly would you, "taking into the account the limits of human reason," go about determining which one you should follow in order to go to heaven? What objective measure is there for the divine legitimacy of a holy text?
But honestly I am well aware this is not how Atheists conduct themselves. They show certainty in their position as many examples illustrate, among them Dawkins, Hitchens, or Harris, who definitely made a name for themselves on the principle of “knowing better” than Theists.
Sweeping generalization. Atheism is just the lack of belief in god, nothing more and nothing less. We're not a cult, that's literally the only thing we all have in common. Attributing any other characteristics to atheists just because certain atheists act a certain way is obviously erroneous.
Which brings me to my question that you neglected to answer before. Honestly even if we gave up on all previous points this one seems to me to be crucial for our debate.
I'm sure you do think it's important that I give you a yes or no answer to a needlessly vague and convoluted question like that.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
One does not have to believe he has the correct answer to not be convinced that you do.Imagine a jar of marbles. The theist holds that there are an even number of marbles in the jar. The atheist is not convinced that the number is even. However, it does not follow from this that he holds that the number is odd either.
The atheist is not claiming to "know better" than the theist, nor is he even making a claim about the number of marbles in the jar. He is only stating that he is not convinced that the claim of the theist is correct.
Why subscribe to Atheism at all? Because the appropriate time to hold a belief is when it can be demonstrated to be true and independently verified by others. Because the null hypothesis is the default position, and the correct one.
At worst, Atheists conduct themselves as if they have a higher standard of evidence than you do, and they do.
Jesus, I've been racking my brain for the last hour on how to get this point across, and here you've made it look easy. What a post. cry
Originally posted by NewGuy01Spoiler:
Oh, and your definition of atheist is wrong again, too. I'm not going to go into it again, though, sofeel free just to reread my previous post.just read Adam's post.
@NewGuy, @Adam
Before I post my response, I just wanted to say sorry for not being very congruent with the timing of my responses. Responding to this debate is way down the list of my priorities, so I hope you understand that.
On top of that, my schedule is always very busy (that is why I don’t do debates on anymore).
I know already that I am not going to be able to respond to anything for a week or so (starting from tomorrow—holidays in Poland. I’m off doing some sightseeing).
- So we can either call it a day and you don’t have to feel compelled to respond to my posts.
- You can respond but just let me know this is your final response and if you wish to see mine or not.
- Or you can wait till I will be able to respond.
All options are fine with me.
1 of 3
Originally posted by NewGuy01
You can twist it however you like, but one of those statements is still empirically false, regardless of the validity of the other.
I can be more descriptive if you want.
If it wasn’t for Christians introducing the notion of the dichotomy of the sacred and the secular into socio-political life, modern Western civilization would not have achieved secularism.
Christians are indeed secularists by default, but it does to mean they fall short of following through with it. There were numerous instances of tensions between the religions and the secular authorities in the long history of the West (as you seem to allude to in one of your previous post).
Still, in order for tension to be recognized between the two there has to be a space for this tension to arise in the first place.
And this is due to Christianity underscoring from day one the dichotomy of the sacred and the secular.
Originally posted by NewGuy01
The aim is to be intellectually consistent.
Originally posted by NewGuy01
Making claims that we have no way of proving is hypocritical, not to mention a waste of time.
Originally posted by NewGuy01
we don't even think god is real.
Originally posted by NewGuy01
nice b8 m8
Originally posted by NewGuy01
--and it is. Period.
Originally posted by NewGuy01
Well for starters, you've misdefined agnosticism. The word "gnostic" comes from the greek word gnosis, which means knowledge, usually referring to divine knowledge. Gnos[b]tics claim to have divine knowledge. Agnostics claim to have no divine knowledge. In other words, someone who is agnostic finds the answer to the question, "does God exist," to be unknowable. [/B]
Now, to the point: This definition of Agnosticism further undermines the consistency pf your position in this debate.
You describe yourself as an Agnostic, so as an Agnostic you proclaim that :
Originally posted by NewGuy01
“the question, "does God exist," to be unknowable.”
Originally posted by NewGuy01
we don't even think god is real.
I know, I know. You seem to think that by embracing both Agnosticism and Atheism this somehow eases out the glaring contradictions in your position I pointed out in my previous post.
But it actually renders your positions to be unintelligible for a philosophical and logical debate we have.
Again. As an Agnostic you claim this:
Originally posted by NewGuy01
the answer to the question, "does God exist," to be unknowable.
But you also in the very same post claim this about Atheism, and you are an self-described Atheist.
Originally posted by NewGuy01
we don't even think god is real.
In a nutshell, you position is contradictory, because want to be two mutually exclusive things at the same time.
Me: Does X exist?
You: I have no knowledge if (can’t know if) X is real or not, but X is not real.
As you can see, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. 😬
2 of 3
On top of that your effort to define Atheism is flawed. I am also not even sure if you knew you were mixing Atheism and Agnosticism before I mentioned the latter. Indeed, before that you seemed to try to define Atheism, not the mix of both.
Interestingly, this can easily be corrected. If you go with a recognized definition of Atheism, which makes it possible to compare this position to both Theism and Agnosticism, without any obscurity in claims. Moreover, this definition of Atheism has potentially far more explanatory power when it comes to the nature of reality and human experience.
Originally posted by NewGuy01
Spoiler:
Oh, and your definition of atheist is wrong again, too. I'm not going to go into it again, though, so feel free just to reread my previous post.
Atheism:
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#DefiAthe
“Atheism” is typically defined in terms of “theism”. Theism, in turn, is best understood as a proposition—something that is either true or false. It is often defined as “the belief that God exists”, but here “belief” means “something believed”. It refers to the propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing. This is why it makes sense to say that theism is true or false and to argue for or against theism. If, however, “atheism” is defined in terms of theism and theism is the proposition that God exists and not the psychological condition of believing that there is a God, then it follows that atheism is not the absence of the psychological condition of believing that God exists (more on this below). The “a-” in “atheism” must be understood as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”. Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods).
and
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
https://www.iep.utm.edu/atheism/
The term “atheist” describes a person who does not believe that God or a divine being exists.
and
Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy
https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/atheism/v-1
Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief.
So yeah.
Originally posted by NewGuy01
No, because then your beliefs would depend on atheists' ability to prove a negative. facepalm
Originally posted by NewGuy01
we don't even think god is real.
On a side note, I am well aware that on a popular level there seems to be a belief that negative statements cannot be proven, but this is not how human beings operate at all.
Examples would include:
- There are no mice behind the fridge. (can be proven via empirical verification)
- There are no married bachelors (can be proven via logical analysis of properties)
3 of 3
Originally posted by NewGuy01
I really hope you're not sure, because if you are it means you're intentionally taking my words out of context. Of course atheists don't "know better" about the will of God, we don't even think god is real.
Originally posted by NewGuy01
But hey, let's take a couple steps back. Why don't you actually try and answer a question for once in this conversation.
Originally posted by NewGuy01
Say the Holy Bible and the Qu'ran, which both purport to be the word of God, contradict each other. How exactly would you, "taking into the account the limits of human reason," go about determining which one you should follow in order to go to heaven? What objective measure is there for the divine legitimacy of a holy text?
Originally posted by NewGuy01
Sweeping generalization. Atheism is just the lack of belief in god, nothing more and nothing less. We're not a cult, that's literally the only thing we all have in common. Attributing any other characteristics to atheists just because certain atheists act a certain way is obviously erroneous.
Yeah, this seems to be a very comfortable position to take.
Atheism can be whatever it needs to be, given every Atheist understands it differently, so in fact it is nothing in particular. So much for “intellectual consistency” you’ve mentioned as Atheisms’ prime goals.
Originally posted by NewGuy01
I'm sure you do think it's important that I give you a yes or no answer to a needlessly vague and convoluted question like that.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No, they do not. The former affirms there is no god, the latter denies there is a god.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
[B One does not have to believe he has the correct answer to not be convinced that you do. [/B]
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Imagine a jar of marbles. The theist holds that there are an even number of marbles in the jar. The atheist is not convinced that the number is even. However, it does not follow from this that he holds that the number is odd either.
The atheist is not claiming to "know better" than the theist, nor is he even making a claim about the number of marbles in the jar. He is only stating that he is not convinced that the claim of the theist is correct.
I don’t think this analogy is doing justice to the issue at all.
For one, God is a timeless, space-less, immaterial, all-powerful, omniscient being. Unlike marbles.... So there’s that.
This analogy can be improved thus:
Imagine a jar. The theist holds that the marbles exist in the jar. The atheist thinks that marbles do not exist in the jar, an Agnostic is unconvinced.
A Theist present a positive set of arguments conducted through the use of logical reasoning, philosophy and theology. An Atheist presents…. well, I assume arguments for his/her position as well. Agnostic slowly excuses himself from the ensuing debate, taking the jar and eating the marbles himself.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Why subscribe to Atheism at all? Because the appropriate time to hold a belief is when it can be demonstrated to be true and independently verified by others. Because the null hypothesis is the default position, and the correct one.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
At worst, Atheists conduct themselves as if they have a higher standard of evidence than you do, and they do.
Originally posted by Stigma
So Atheists think God does not exist, ok?
No, not okay.
Originally posted by Stigma
Unless one makes claims about the object/idea under scrutiny, which Atheists do.
Atheists are merely responding to the claims made by theists. They are accepting a hypothetical framework for the purposes of argument. That is not the same as making claims themselves.
Originally posted by Stigma
I don’t think this analogy is doing justice to the issue at all.For one, God is a timeless, space-less, immaterial, all-powerful, omniscient being. Unlike marbles.... So there’s that.
[list=1][*]I can declare that pink elephants can fly, but it does not follow from this that there is such a thing as pink elephants, or that if there is that they can indeed fly.
[*]The argument is still logically equivalent, your objection notwithstanding.[/list]
Originally posted by Stigma
This analogy can be improved thus:Imagine a jar. The theist holds that the marbles exist in the jar. The atheist thinks that marbles do not exist in the jar, an Agnostic is unconvinced.
A Theist present a positive set of arguments conducted through the use of logical reasoning, philosophy and theology. An Atheist presents…. well, I assume arguments for his/her position as well. Agnostic slowly excuses himself from the ensuing debate, taking the jar and eating the marbles himself.
Agnostics are Atheists by definition. Belief is a true dichotomy. Either you believe, to use your example, there are marbles in the jar or you do not. If you do, you are a theist. Everyone else is an atheist.
Originally posted by Stigma
I call BS on that one. Example: Aesthetic appreciation of beauty.
What about it? Anything that can be observed can be quantified.
Originally posted by Stigma
What higher standard of evidence you have in mind exactly?
It is demonstrably higher in that they do not accept the evidence presented as sufficient and you do.
The standard of proof is higher when you're purporting to know the specific properties of God rather than speculating about some random higher entity.
Even the best arguments I've seen in favour of God's existence only ever make points in relation to the latter, not the former. They're also usually made with prior knowledge of the intended type of deity; I find it hard to believe that anyone who doesn't presuppose the existence of that specific god (e.g. the Christian God) would reach the same conclusions as them.