Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
Well this is surprisingly a civil conversation... can’t wait for someone specific to come in and ruin it
__________________
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
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.
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.
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?
Well of course you think you know what's right and true regarding the divine, you're a theist.
Then go ahead and give me an example, so I can show you the difference.
Right...? That does not undermine the fact that Christianity can be argeud to be the driving force behind the rise of Secularism.
No, not really. The purpose was the same as stated in the OP. My comment was just to showcase that Christianity and Secularism are more closely tied than Secularism and Atheism. Nothing more.
I am sorry if you have such impression. Rather than being cryptic I was just trying to see what position you subscribe to and on that grounds decide if we can proceed with the discussion, or if it will become unintelligible in the long run.
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.
???
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.
I’ve mentioned Justice as an ideal that functions in culture. Would you say it is something measurable?
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?
Last edited by Stigma on Apr 22nd, 2018 at 07:49 PM
You're right, it doesn't. It does, however, undermine the claim that "Christians are by default secular," which is what I addressed.
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.
You really seem to be fond of making false equivalencies.
Maybe not. But I also wouldn't say justice literally exists.
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.
__________________ Join the new Star Wars vs. forum: Suspect Insight Forums (not url'd for spam prevention)
“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.
No, not really.
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:
Right, it may very well be that God exists.
Right, it may well be that God does not exist.
Right, so God could exist, it is just a matter of a better understanding of the nature of reality.
Right, so God is unlikely to exist because there is no good evidence for Him.
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.
No, not really. I am fond of clarity of thought, though.
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.
Therein lies the Pandora box neither of us would like to open, given that you are a materialist (as I recall form out previous brief exchange some time ago) and I am not, and thus the very definition of existence would be something we could not agree on.
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:
Last edited by Stigma on Apr 27th, 2018 at 06:02 PM
No, they do not. The former affirms there is no god, the latter denies there is a god.
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.
You can twist it however you like, but one of those statements is still empirically false, regardless of the validity of the other.
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.
nice b8 m8
--and it is. Period.
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 - highlight to read]: 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.
No, because then your beliefs would depend on atheists' ability to prove a negative.
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?
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.
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.
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.
I don’t see how I am twisting anything. My original claim “as far as political life goes, Christians are by default secular” has not been changed by my additional comments at all. As I said, it is rather self-evident too.
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.
Which is certainly not what you achieved thus far, though.
So why make this claim?
You seem to say that it is impossible to prove the negative, yet you assert that something in not which is an example of a declarative statement on the negative. (X is not real)
?
Rather an observation, but whatever floats your boat.
No, not really. Better make it a “comma” because there is much more to be said about your position and its inherent inconsistencies. But first, let me address my shortcomings.
As a sidemode before I make my comment on that portion of your post, I must say that indeed I re-read my post and realized you are correct here.
I personally don’t think that once cannot attain knowledge on the divine, which the definition you introduced mentions. What I presented is sometimes called “weak” Agnosticism, but indeed your definition preferred.
Regardless I am happy to concede that your definition is the correct one.
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 :
So how do you explain this assertion?
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:
(We don’t know/can’t know if God is or is not)
But you also in the very same post claim this about Atheism, and you are an self-described Atheist.
(There is no God.)
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.
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.
Yeah, I think you mentioned it already irrc. But this is the definition of Atheism that would clarify your position and make the debate possible:
….you have no problem asserting a negative (God is not real) and then complain you cannot prove it?
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)
Last edited by Stigma on Apr 29th, 2018 at 07:49 PM
What I mean, and I think it has been clear, is that just like any philosophy of life Atheism claims monopoly on being better than other philosophies of life. When it comes to knowing the diving you already made the claim that there is none, so yeah.
Sure.
I would say using philosophical analysis based on logical reasoning would be helpful. I would analyze the properties of the concept of God as it pertains to both. Then you could juxtapose that with the central figures of both religions, Jesus and Mohammed, respectively
I am sorry if you took it that way, but I was trying to grasp the general trends among a group that seems to subscribe to the same philosophy. But now you tell me, you have virtually nothing in common. So two Atheists are (almost) like chalk and cheese?
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.
Yes, I do. I also don’t think it is vague at all. It is may very well be the most transparent issue we talked about so far.
1. Everyone has a set of convictions on the nature of reality
2. You (and me, and others) grasp what the idea of God
3. Question: How do you around your convictions on reality in relation to the question “does God exist?”
Unless one makes claims about the object/idea under scrutiny, which Atheists do.
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.
I call BS on that one. Example: Aesthetic appreciation of beauty.
What higher standard of evidence you have in mind exactly?
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.
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.
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.
What about it? Anything that can be observed can be quantified.
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.