Printable View
It looks a lot more like you made an assumption which was just wrong. If you understand that atheism is a lack of belief, it cannot be a touchstone, just as a-philately cannot be.Quote:
Originally Posted by blp
No matter, it's clear now.
Well, it was you who asked me. I just pointed out that the question has already been answered in this thread, so if your question was genuine, you could find out in just a few minutes. Whether you do or not is no concern to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by blp
Hi Blaze!!Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeofglory
how do you do??
I take your point on the significance of philosophy...
philosophy is the evolution of thought which is the basis of all facts and sciences!
Atheism is, infact a belief, in a disbelief about anything but self!Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
You're showing a distinct lack of understanding of what atheism actually is.Quote:
Originally Posted by mazHur
Atheist = without belief in god/s.
No more, no less. It is emphatically not a belief system and cannot be. Self has nothing to do with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
IT IS NOT A BELIEF, people! Atheists know for a FACT that God doesn't exist!
Also, it's not like a whole blog communities exist full of daily posts by atheist's spewing vitriol about religion and sharing other posts dealing with other topics of interest to a group of people who don't share a belief--whoops, I mean basic common assumptions--erm, I mean coincidental overlap of certain accidental synchronizations of ideas. :rolleyes:
I don't care whether you type it in all caps or put it in size seven bold, you are simply wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Drkshadow03
And do make sure you check my name before considering your response, because I am The Atheist, not just an atheist.
:D
How the hell are we discussing this here anyway?
What I'll do is start a thread in Serious topics and put a link right here, so you can see what I mean, and I am pleased to state that the links you provided are ideal for my answer.
Thanks!
The OP:Please note that off-topic posts will be removed without further notice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vautrin
well, that's how I thought 'atheists' are, however, in any or all cases God does have a role in their lives...without whose mention the definition of an Atheist is not completeQuote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I'd say modern science, which originated after the Renaissance, exposed philosophy as drivel. Now from my understanding, science up until that point was inextricable from philosophy. What we call, for instance, physics nowadays was still known in Newton's time as 'philosophy of nature'. I think science emerging as an autonomous field led the way to make philosophy redundant.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vautrin
On the other hand, the philosophy of Newton's time wasn't exactly the noble and useful philosophy of Socrates or Aristotles, which sought to explain the world through observation and experiment and invented syllogisms. It was better called Christian theology, devoted to the nature of God and closed to the physical world. It was the philosophy of Saint Augustine, Boethius, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Duns Scotus, Rousseau - supposedly erudite men who filled countless pages about abstractions.
I find most philosophy after the Greeks and before the 20th century drivel. It operated on the assumption that Christian dogma was infallible, beautiful and natural. Philosophy dared not look at the world with objective eyes because all that mattered was in the bible; philosophers' roles was to reiterate, recapitulate, not question, its knowledge.
The 20th century philosophy of Mary Midgley, Bertrand Russell, Albert Camus, Erich Fromm, John Rawls, George Steiner, Isaiah Berlin, etc. is infinitely more fascinating because: a) they're people clearly grounded on Earth; c) they have scientific approaches and draw knowledge from many fields of thinking; and c) they offer insight into the real world and not, for instance, the angelic hierarchy or the music of the spheres.
Marrying philosophy with science is the need of the day? But can we? is the question that intrigues all of us no matter where we are rooted, rationally, empirically, religiously, scientifically, theistically, atheistically, theologically, mythologically, spiritually, materialistically. We cannot fully be earthbound the way Russell and the legion following him. I am torn between the two extremes- God exist and God does not exist. So was and is Stephen Hawking, the physicist with his latest findings in the Grand Design. Of course the design is grand no matter it hailed out of chaos or consciousness in point of fact. I do not think science ever can solve this mystery.
Atheist, you sound a bit incensed and that makes you irrational in point of fact. You are THE atheist, the ideal atheist who can conclusively put forth the idea of theism and atheism, not even Stephen Hawking, the illustrious physicist could conclude in his famous book "the theory of everything"! This is a delusion – the atheism – delusion. Forgive me for my poor English!Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Even Einstein was not against the idea of Impersonal God! You can keep on arguing through volumes of your squabbles over the matter.
Since English is not my mother tongue, coming from different cultures, for give me for any abusiveness in my language. This is limited to your particular post or opinion only.
Alright I didn't feel like reading 12 pages so I'm basically referring to the first post and I apologize if these views have already been espoused.
I don't quite know how to answer this question because I don't know exactly what it is asking but.... I would say philosophy is valuable fora few reasons.
1) It is interesting above anything else and so is entertaining but in a different way than say straight literature, or paintings, or music, or movies. So I think it enriches that tradition of understanding/entertainment.
2) I think there are some very cool philosophy of mind concepts that basically seem to be completely insoluble but give one interesting perspectives and things to think about, and I think particularly in the point that there are things that are unknowable but the us, at least with the nervous system we currently have. Things about qualia, the self and its continuity, personal identity, consciousness etc... are all pretty cool, and basically need to be addressed especially with the potential advent of AI, downloading your mind onto a computer, teleportation etc...
3) Morality is another pretty difficult question that philosophy seems to perennially address. And there are some very sticky things there in which it is difficult to come away with a wholly unified view, but which are very applicable to decisions etc... that we make every day. Animal treatment comes to mind. Advanced AI problems here as well. Abortion again.
Those are just things I think are interesting and important.
I'm sure Political Philosophy has some good stuff too though I haven't read much of it.
Basically if you are enjoying reading it I don't think its rubbish. If it is enriching your "soul" and demolishing and reconstituting your mental schemas I think it is not rubbish.
Neither incensed nor irrational - I would have thought the grinning emoticon would have given that away.Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeofglory
Also, you need to note that my argument is about the meaning of the word "atheist", not whether god/s actually exist.
Einstein and Hawking both had an eye on public opinion, which in the largest market for books in English - USA - is anti-atheist.Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeofglory
I'm quite convinced Einstein used "god" metaphorically, especially after seeing his personal letters on the subject of the christian one.
Hawking states that there is no need to inject god into the equation.
We're left arguing Spinoza's "god" which is a kind of Monty Python-esque default god for people who don't want to admit to atheism.
I've never seen any point in it myself - what use is a god who doesn't actually do anything?
Nothing abusive there - you need to try harder!Quote:
Originally Posted by blazeofglory
:D
Hawking has recently restated his support for atheism, and he's definitely always been a supporter of maintaining science secular and apart from commenting on political and religious matters. Since his book he has restated that he believes without a doubt that the universe would have originated the way it has simply as a product of the laws of physics, and that no God is necessary to explain the origin of our universe as is.
Atheism is a faith just like any religion let me show youQuote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Atheism = faith that there is no god
As it is not known weather there is a god or not
Now you may say I am wrong and atheism is merely
Atheist = without belief in god/s.
So it is not a faith. But then I might say religion is not a faith as it is simply
Deist = without belief of absence of god/s.
I am moving this derail and your post to the thread specifically set up for that purpose:Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=54929
I don't think it works that way. I don't believe in the Easter Bunny, but that doesn't make me a member of the abunnyist religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander III
I expected resentment from you. You proved me wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Philosophy drivel? Nonsense! We cannot escape philosophy, it plants the seeds that grows into a garden of solutions, universally accepted or not. It is applied in everything do and understand. Even answers that are considered scientifically "factual" are not universally accepted. Every book you open, you are naturally invited into the author's philosophy, even if it contains some commonly known facts, not everyone accepts them.
Evolution began as a philosophy, as did relativity; all science begins as a philosophy until it is further rationally investigated as 'proof.' Where would we be today without the Age of Enlightenment or the revolutions? Would slavery and segregation still exist? It is our common philosophy of morals that has eradicated much of the 'evils' we have faced throughout history, even if some of these eradications were done with 'evil' (such as wars).The concept of 'right' and 'wrong' is only commonly understood, not universally. The whole world and everyone's way of living is primarily based on conjectures, I know everyone wants to be able to look at something and get a direct and concrete answer, but there may not be an answer without the question first.
Philosophy is only as good as what's practical. If you can apply what works and simply understand the rest, then philosophy isn't drivel at all.
I have no intention of reviving this ironically long thread, but I'd like to say something for the record:
Some might remember that I had a discussion in this thread with 'The Atheist', me supporting philosophy and him bashing it. After starting the book 'The Moral Landscape' by Sam Harris, I have come to realize that I was wrong. Probably not for the very same reasons the Atheist advocated, but still.
As Hawking said, "Philosophy is dead." The useful 'philosophy' (i.e. Singer's 'Practical Ethics' or Dennett's 'Consciousness Explained') better fits the category of science, for it comes to conclusions by means of rational analysis and experimental data.
There still remains a case for 'Philosophy of Science' and 'Epistemology', but since these subjects are dominated by postmodernism, produce confusion, and promote ignorance instead of answers, I come to the above stated conclusion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/05/bo...ewanted=1&_r=1Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
NYT October 1, 2010
Science Knows Best
By KWAME ANTHONY APPIAH
THE MORAL LANDSCAPE
How Science Can Determine Human Values
By Sam Harris
291 pp. Free Press. $26.99
Sam Harris heads the youth wing of the New Atheists. “The End of Faith,” his blistering take-no-*prisoners attack on the irrationality of religions, found him many fans and, not surprisingly, a great body of detractors. In “Letter to a Christian Nation,” a follow-up prompted by the responses of Christians unhappy with his first book, he set out, he said, “to demolish the intellectual and moral pretensions of Christianity in its most committed forms,” and so acquired, no doubt, more friends and more enemies. Certainly both books have had a wide and animated readership.
His new book, “The Moral Landscape,” aims to meet head-on a claim he has often encountered when speaking out against religion: that the scientific worldview he favors has nothing to say on moral questions. That claim often keeps company with the thesis, elaborated by the evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould, that science and religion have “nonoverlapping magisteria.” The authority of science and the authority of religion cover different domains, Gould thought, and the methods of each are inappropriate for the study of the other’s problems. Religion deals with questions about what Harris calls “meaning, morality and life’s larger purpose,” questions that have no scientific answers.
Harris, who has a doctorate in neuroscience, holds the opposite view. Only science can help us answer these questions, he says. That’s because truths about morality and meaning must “relate to facts about the well-being of conscious creatures,” and science alone — especially neuroscience, his field — can uncover those facts. So rather than consulting Aristotle or Kant (let alone the Bible or the Koran) about what is necessary for humans to flourish, why not go to the sciences that study conscious mental life?
Harris means to deny a thought often ascribed to David Hume, according to which there is a clear conceptual distinction between facts and values. Facts are susceptible of rational investigation; values, supposedly, not. But according to Harris, values, too, can be uncovered by science — the right values being ones that promote well-being. “Just as it is possible for individuals and groups to be wrong about how best to maintain their physical health,” he writes, “it is possible for them to be wrong about how to maximize their personal and social well-being.”
But wait: how do we know that the morally right act is, as Harris posits, the one that does the most to increase well-being, defined in terms of our conscious states of mind? Has science really revealed that? If it hasn’t, then the premise of Harris’s all-we-need-is-science argument must have nonscientific origins.
In fact, what he ends up endorsing is something very like utilitarianism, a philosophical position that is now more than two centuries old, and that faces a battery of familiar problems. Even if you accept the basic premise, how do you compare the well-being of different people? Should we aim to increase average well-being (which would mean that a world consisting of one bliss case is better than one with a billion just slightly less blissful people)? Or should we go for a cumulative total of well-being (which might favor a world with zillions of people whose lives are just barely worth living)? If the mental states of conscious beings are what matter, what’s wrong with killing someone in his sleep? How should we weigh present well-being against future well-being?
It’s not that Harris is unaware of these questions, exactly. He refers to the work of Derek Parfit, who has done more than any philosopher alive to explore such difficulties. But having acknowledged some of these complications, he is inclined to push them aside and continue down his path.
That’s the case even with something as basic as what’s meant by well-being. Harris often writes as if all that matters is our conscious experience. Yet he also insists that truth is an important value. So does it count against your well-being if your happiness is based on an illusion — say, the false belief that your wife loves you? Or is subjective experience all that matters, in which case a situation in which the husband is fooled, and the wife gets pleasure from fooling him, is morally preferable to one in which she acknowledges the truth? Harris never articulates his central claim clearly enough to let us know where he would come down. But if he thinks that well-being has an objective component, one wants to know how science revealed this fact.
Harris was a philosophy major at Stanford, but he is inclined to scant most of what philosophers have had to say about well-being. There is, for example, a movement in contemporary philosophy and economics known as “the capabilities approach,” which takes seriously the question of identifying the components of well-being and measuring them. But neither of the two leading exponents of this approach — the philosopher and economist Amartya Sen and the philosopher and classicist Martha Nussbaum — gets a mention in the book.
The most compelling strand in “The Moral Landscape” is its unspooling diatribe against relativism. Harris insists that there are correct answers to all questions of right and wrong, regardless of anyone’s culture or religion. And, though some questions may escape our inquiries, many can be answered by science; none, he appears to think, can be answered without it.
You might suppose, reading this book, that this anti-relativism was controversial among philosophers. So it may be worth pointing out that a recent survey of a large proportion of the world’s academic philosophers revealed that they are more than twice as likely to favor moral realism — the view that there are moral facts — than to favor moral anti-realism. Two thirds of them, it turns out, are also what we call cognitivists, believing that many (and perhaps all) moral claims are either true or false. And Harris himself concedes that few philosophers “have ever answered to the name of ‘moral relativist.’ ” Given that, he might have spent more time with some of the many arguments against relativism that philosophers have offered. If he had, he might have noticed that you can hold that there are moral truths that can be rationally investigated without holding that the experimental sciences provide the right methods for doing so.
Still, there’s plenty of interest in “The Moral Landscape.” Harris draws our attention to the fact that “science increasingly allows us to identify aspects of our minds that cause us to deviate from norms of factual and moral reasoning.” And when he stays closest to neuroscience, he says much that is interesting and important: about the limits of functional magnetic resonance imaging as a tool for studying brain function; about the current understanding of psychopaths (whose brains display “significantly less activity in regions of the brain that generally respond to emotional stimuli”); about the similarities in the ways in which moral and nonmoral belief seem to be handled in the brain. I found myself wishing for less of the polemic against religion, which recurs often and takes up one entire chapter — he has had two bites of that apple already, and will soon be reduced to gnawing at the core — and I wanted more of the illumination that comes from our increasing understanding of neuroscience.
Yet such science is best appreciated with a sense of what we can and cannot expect from it, and a real contribution to the old project of a “naturalized ethics” would have required a fuller engagement with its contradictions and complications. Instead, the landscape that the book calls to mind is that of a city a few days after a snowstorm. A marvelously clear avenue stretches before us, but the looming banks to either side betray how much has been unceremoniously swept aside.
Kwame Anthony Appiah is the author of “Experiments in Ethics” and “The Honor Code: How Moral Revolutions Happen.”
sorry no url as recvd this in an email only
Ya, I'm not fond of Harris' ethical naturalism. I concede that science has the ability to help inform moral action, when it comes to the welfare of living things, but it does not necessarily guide us towards any moral decision. I have always agreed with Gould's approach of keep science and religion separate things. Science is a useful method for understanding natural phenomena, it is not a useful guide to how we should treat others. An explanation of how things are does not necessarily inform how things should be.
Anytime we should ever meet up, I will buy you the biggest beer/whisky/whatever, that you've ever seen, let alone drunk.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodo25
:D
While I agree with Sammy on lots of things, I dislike him with an intensity I can taste. To me, nothing is more morally reprehensible than someone who understands that we are nothing more than strings of molecules then supports violence in any form.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
As usual, Harris goes too far, and the reviewer's metaphor of a snowed-in village is entirely apt. As you say, you can't get an ought from an is, but I do think Harris is largely right. Gould just liked playing Pascal's wager.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
If religion had ever been right about something, I think there would be some use to the approach, but in the light of 10,000 years of evidence to the contrary, I can't accept NOMA as a valid method.
We can use the scientific method to validate morals and ethics, just not in the way Harris thinks we can.
One thing I do like about Sammy being brought into a conversation is that one of my oldest and best online friends is a neuroscientist, complete with PhD, a massive list of publications and international recognition in the field - unlike Harris. Again unlike Harris, the field led him into theism and he is now a committed Roman Catholic.
I must beg to differ. The lack of belief position is agnosticism. When you assert any claim about God (in the general sense of the term), whether he does or does not exist, you're reasoning will always fall prey to the problems of induction, which ultimately show us we only put faith in the inferences about reality that we find intuitive. We might be brains in a vat, but we have faith in the assumption that we arent...unless youre agnostic.Quote:
Originally Posted by dafydd manton
On the contrary, Spinoza's God does everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
No, and there's even an entire thread dedicated to the subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist
Agnosticism is quite different. If you're unsure of the difference, Google will be your friend.
And there's the reason for your error. I have bolded the relevant part.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist
Atheism doesn't make any assertions or claims about god/s. You cannot make claims about something you have no evidence for.
You've fallen into the usual trap of presuming that atheism means "No god/s exist", which is just wrong. Some atheists say that, but other atheists believe the world is run by alien lizards disguised as humans. Atheism means "I do not believe in any god/s"
If in doubt, please refer to the thread, which is here.
I'll come back to this one when I figure out how to have faith in an assumption.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist
Uh, no. Spinoza'a position was deism, which assserts that the god does not intervene in the physical universe. A non-interventionist god by definition does not "do" anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist
The actual reason or inspiration for this thread was honestly something quite different than what has been discussed here thus far, which is fine.
What more or less inspired me to make this thread was my reintroduction to Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics; more specifically his discussion of friendship and its three basic forms. I didn't mention this at first because I didn't want the discussion to become solely about that topic.
Friendship is a very complicated thing if we really attempt to objectively understand it and accurately explain why we keep the company we do. How this relates to my question concerning when philosophy becomes drivel has to do with the idea of examining and defining our friendships using Aristotle's points on this issue.
Essentially, what I'm getting at is when it comes to the people in our lives, such as friends and acquaintances, can philosophy be helpful or is it too general to be effective and, therefore, rubbish? If you were having a dispute with a friend would you ever conceive of using Aristotle's writings - or any other philosopher - on friendship as guidance in solving the problem? Would it seem too unnatural or even robotic to find solutions for real life problems from an antiquated philosophy book?
I personally think Aristotle hit the nail on the head with his ideas on friendship. I can see using his ideas in reexamining certain friendships and even when forming new ones. However, I can also see how it would seem ridiculous or even Machiavellian to consciously use his categories of friendship when dealing with actual people. Therefore, his ideas are very useful or very worthless depending on how one uses them.
So I guess I just answered my own question. Philosophy becomes drivel once you stop using it as one of many tools in expanding your thinking and start using it as a blanket answer for everything. The same would apply to all other fields.
I suspect you've only read about Spinoza from secondary resources or your memory is just defective, so read this: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ethics_(Spinoza)/Part_1Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
by my understanding (and it takes no great interpreter to reach this understanding) Spinoza's God is the physical universe. Nice try, though.
Atheism argues God doesnt exist in the same way I argue there's not a tiger behind me right now (even though I might argue there's a monkey), but all three are inductive arguments and ergo fall prey to the problem of induction.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat
The book where Hume describes the "problem of induction":
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/An_Enq..._Understanding
You put a smile on my face :D But if you say these so called "atheists" don't make any claims about God's existence (or lack thereof) then I'm pretty sure you're just misusing the word or trying to conveniently change the definition.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
p.s.
Since these things are off topic I will send my responses hereafter via private messages
No.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist
I stated that Spinoza's god was non-interventionist, and even your link shows that my position is 100% correct. The naturalistic stance that god is "all of creation" isn't at all unusual, and I don't even bother arguing against it; a god that does not intervene in the physical universe may be ignored, and that is one axiom I stick to.
The only part we're discussing here is whether his god physically changed the universe at his will. If you want to find something Spinoza wrote that suggests he believed in an interventionist god, then please present it - nothing else is relevant.
The point is quite subtle, but important.
No, this is your category error - atheism has nothing to do with induction. Your analogy of the tiger is an excellent starting point, because it is so obviously wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist
You state "There is no tiger."
The atheist does not state "There is no god."
I'm assuming the "linguist" in your name is only there for comedic effect, because a linguist, of all people, would know that language is defined by usage, not Wikipedia and Merriam-Webster.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist
There is, however, considerable irony that a non-atheist tries to insist on a meaning for atheist. It's usually the theist's prerogative to try to persuade people that atheism is a position of belief. The irony in that is deep enough to export to China.
Please don't. The ideal place would be in the thread I linked, but this one will do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist
I started the thread to help alert people to the fact that the kind of fallacies you're stating here are actually fallacies, so I'd much rather they were recorded publicly.
The runaway winning number one fallacy is that atheism says "there is no tiger/god".
This thread reminds me very much of Youtube. You know when the video is about say...The Solar System and when scrolling down to the comments the viewers are arguing back and forth about the the Holy Crusades. Haha!
I'll do the honors.....:crash:
Oh wait, I missed a spot....:crash:
There we go! :D
The pertinent aspect Spinoza's God is that he is the physical universe. This is shown in his definition of God as "a substance of infinite attributes" and his many proofs on why there can only be one substance. And if we take Spinoza's definition of God he is impossible to ignore - it is pretty clear that he is not an “intervening” one in the sense that you’re using the word, but I dont think Spinoza would have claimed his God did or did not intervene, he is too abstract. however there is an argument to be made that since he is a substance of infinite attributes and the only substance in existence he can do everything (i.e. manifest as any “modification” possible) or that he does everything.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
The point is important, I think, while discussing Spinoza in general - we wouldn't want to make him seemed grouped with all the rest of the theists.
I'm guessing you didn't read the article? Though I've read the wiki article and find it equally qualified but easier to read, here's a more credible resource for your liking:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-inductive/
The atheist has everything to do with induction, the agnostic has nothing to do with induction. This is in accord with popular and dictionary definitions of the words.
A word gains its meaning through both de facto usages and de jure definitions. To start, your definition poses a few key problems, as far as I can see. You state an atheist is anyone who does not believe in God, however you must then go about more fully defining God, what are his attributes, etc. etc.. Are muslims atheists because they believe in Allah? Are all pantheists also atheists because they do not accept any single God? And by this definition all agnostics are atheists because they do not accept any God. If you define him as an entity separate from reality then Spinoza is also an Atheist, and if you include Spinoza's definition then God becomes as impossible to refute as it does your own existence. Are aliens atheists because they do not know of God? No, this is aburd. If anything they'd be agnostic. If I don't actively believe in widgets because I've never heard of widgets that doesn't make me an awidgetist. To be an atheist it is necessary to actively deny the existence of a God. The entymology suggests that this is the case, too. Read: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Also your definition, I'm pretty sure, does not conform with the general de facto, if you like, definition. All the atheists I have met with deny God in the popularized sense and define themselves as atheists by such a denial.
I do not know where you get this idea that I'm a non-atheist, for I'm pretty sure I have not said that anywhere on these forums. It is equally usually the atheists prerogative to try to presuade that atheism not a position of belief as to render them immune to attacks. But, as sufficiently shown by the previous links in this and the last post, it is. Once again, it is pretty clear, by both dictionary and non-dictionary definitions, a lack of belief is agnosticism.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
If that's your wish then I will honor it, though I think it would facilitate the course of the argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I don't see how you've shown that any of what I'm saying is a fallacy, how any conclusions haven't followed from a premise or how any of my arguments are unsound (i.e. that either I've had invalid inferences or false premises). And from this observation I'm lead to believe that you either don't know what exactly constitutes a fallacy or that you're trying to lie to the forum readers in faith that they also do not know the definition and cannot judge the arguments by themselves, or both. If any allusion at all to an actual fallacy was made it was my point that you were equivocating on the definition of atheism presumably as to render your position immune to any arguments attempting to show its shortcomings.
I see you're still insisting on being wrong here - which is good in a thread about why philosophy is drivel. You cannot even grasp that a lack of belief has nothing whatsoever to do with induction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist
This could not be any simpler, and the thread on the subject has all of the links necessary to show why you're simply making a category error.
This is why I wonder why I bother replying - you continually miss points I have repeatedly made - in this case, you have missed my obvious and repeated use of the singular/plural "god/s" to show that atheists do not believe in any gods.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist
An atheist trying to define god would be even worse than a non-atheist trying to define atheism.
Again, you are trying to enforce your own definition onto something you clearly know nothing about. Outstanding that you choose a philosophical resource to help you deeper into the hole, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist
Seriously, I have to chuckle at the article you linked to.
Second sentence: "I shall here assume...."
Philosophy wins again!
:smilielol5:
This again displays your own lack of knowledge on atheism, because that position is rare.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist
I do not believe there is a single atheism group with more than half a dozen members which would agree with you. Internet Infidels, skeptic societies, humanist groups and atheist groups all agree that atheism is a lack of belief, not a denial.
If you bothered to take time to do some actual research rather than linking to philosophical papers, you'd actually see how wrong you are.
Is it simply a case that "all the atheists you've met" are about 16 years old and angry at god?
Things become obvious from context - and it is painfully obvious that you are not an atheist. If you were, you would be quoting Dawkins and agreeing with me, instead of trying to imbue philosophy papers with authority.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist
You speak of "all the atheists you've met" without giving a number. I can display written and electronic evidence that I have actually conversed with thousands of atheists in writing over the course of thirty years.
I have met plenty of atheists - albeit a small minority of the whole - who will state "there is no god", but you will not find one that agrees with you on what the meaning of atheist actually is.
On the other hand, I have also conversed with hundreds of theists and agnostics who have tried to insist that your incorrect meaning is valid.
I'm comfortable with the premise that you are in the second group.
Ouch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist
See, this is what happens when you use a philosophy paper as evidence. I'm assuming the bloke who wrote it failed, because it's so wrong as to be laughable.
He claims agnosticism was introduced by Thomas Huxley!
:smilielol5:
Even your beloved Wiki will tell you agnosticism is about knowledge, not belief.
All this is helluva funny to me - after the arguments I've had with agnostics at this place. Pity JBI isn't here to help you out on what agnosticism actually is.
Lying? Nice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist
A simple description of "fallacy".
I have explained ad nauseum why your reasoning is incorrect, and I repeat yet again, that there is considerably more evidence in the atheism thread to show why you have a misconception on the subject.Quote:
In logic and rhetoric, a fallacy is a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning in argumentation.
Note that I was not talking about logical fallacies, just a plain old fallacy; being wrong.
No, but nice try.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist
As a rationalist, I could not take the position that "god/s do not exist".
I don't understand how there can be so much confusion over such a simple issue.
Atheism is the disbelief in gods. This includes a range of ideas, from those who disbelieve in gods because they think it highly unlikely that gods could exist to those who believe, with religious intensity, that gods absolutely do not exist.
Agnosticism is the position that the question of whether gods exist or not is unknowable and thus it is impossible to favor one position over the other.
I had a philosophy of religion professor who used to say Agnostics were 'fraidy-cats, "Just take a position!" he would say, man I loved that old curmudgeon.
I have been known to use that kind of approach myself!Quote:
Originally Posted by Cat Square
By your definition I am an atheist, I am a practical atheist; and actually what I think has happened here is just miscommunication.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I would qoute dawkins for some things, and I greatly appreciate him for turning so many individuals onto evolution, but some of the things he says about religion are wrong.
...
Let us talk about implicit/negative/practical atheism vs. explicit/positive/theoretical atheism. The former is defined by having the capacity to have theistic belief but not while simultaneously making no claim that the statement “there is at least one God” is false. The latter is defined by claiming that the statement “there is at least one God” is false.
First we have the chief criticism of explicit/…/theoretical atheism, which has been mentioned formerly, i.e. the problem of induction, as Hume shows us, which sufficiently proves that the statement “God does not exist” is not provable, though maybe more intuitive than its reciprocal statement “God does exist.” This thereby renders explicit atheism a faith; a belief that God does not exist just as it is a belief that Russell’s tea pot or the invisible pink unicorn on Jupiter does not exist. And the pedestrian and academic definitions both include explicit atheism and as explicit atheism is a faith it would not be accurate to categorize all atheism as a lack of belief. This would be to commit a “categorical error” as you say.
Next we have the query of whether or not atheism should refer exclusively to explicit atheism or to both explicit and implicit, and why. The second we might suppose is convenient as it allows us to classify virtually all people into two camps, atheism and theism (I suppose one could be a practical agnostic, too); however, this only classifies them by their actions, not their convictions. That is, one is either an atheist because they act as a pragmatic atheist, though are not necessarily a theoretical one, or one is a theist because they act according to what they believe are “divine” standards. But having a definition so broad comes at the expense of equivocation and therefore has dubious suitability. For example the informal fallacy:
1. A baby is born an atheist (according to d’Holbach)
2. A baby does not make any theoretical claims about God.
3. Ergo atheism is a lack of belief.
The fourth inference in this line of reasoning is usually something like: as this is the case atheism cannot be criticized on theoretical grounds. And there are many other fallacious arguments of this sort, and I suspect that most explicit atheists will keep committing this fallacy of equivocation, as it makes theoretical atheism appear infallible, but is clearly not as we have both settled.
If truth is anything to aim for then the polysemous and imprecise applicability of the word is an inconvenience. What is convenient is what reduces ambiguousness; hence the word atheism ought to not be utilized in a polysemous mode but either as exclusively meaning implicit or exclusively explicit atheism; and, to me, the latter seems more apt. Apparently it is the former for you.
Another criticism of using atheism as an umbrella term is that it carries connotations that those who are defined as practical atheists but are not theoretical atheists might not want. Using it as an umbrella term labels many agnostics and skeptics as atheists, it labels the alien-lizardist as an atheist, and the baby as an atheist. I have a few friends that are philosophical skeptics that would not want the sobriquet of atheist. I don’t see anything wrong with classifying the baby as a theoretical nothingist (not ‘nothing’ but ‘nothingist.’ Labeling something as just nothing implies it does not have the capacity to believe).
He coined the term.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I dont think I ever denied that.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I don’t know where you got that definition of a fallacy. As for your argumentation, maybe you should commit to being more explicit and explanative instead of filling up your replies with ad hominem. Then perhaps we could reach a consensus that much more quickly?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
OK, by my definitions that qualifies you as a (theoretical) agnostic and an apatheist or practical atheist or an implicit atheist, if you like.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I find that difficult to believe as your opposition to the obvious appeared deliberate rather than reuslting from a mistake, but I'll have a look.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist
Given that no two versions of the same religion actually agree with each other 100%, I think the few errors he makes are overstated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist
I can't imagine why it's going to be helpful. As I've already said, even David Icke is an atheist, and he's barking mad; divisions of atheism aren't all that relevant, so I'm not bothering to go down that track.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist
As long as we agree on what the word means I don't care what divisions you make or what you name them.
Sorry, but that is just word salad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist
I have pointed out why the meaning I use is correct, and hiding it behind verbosity and assertions about truth will not change the fact that your position is outdated, irrelevant and incorrect.
You're still just arguing the same point.
No. You're trying to separate varieties of atheists that only you categorise as a means of re-stating that which has already been shown to be false.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist
If people are so soft as to worry about sharing a term with someone because their personal doctrines might differ, then they should either harden up or find another noun.
Atheism isn't a doctrine, despite your attempts to build it into one.
That's fine, nobody is going to force them into an atheist bracelet or make them wear a scarlet A on their chests.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist
I also know a few philosophical skeptics that dislike the word. That makes me like it even more, but that's just me.
Regarding Huxley, again it seems you chose to mis-read what I wrote. Huxley may well have coined the word but he certainly did not invent agnosticism. Not by a long way.
That's an odd answer. See if you can find a dictionary that does not have that as a definition for "fallacy".Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist
Here are a few to start with:
Yahoo
MacMillan
Merriam-Webster
Cambridge
Collins
Encarta
Wordsmyth
There are lots more.
There are two parts to this:Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist
1 I have no need to be explicit when I've repeatedly pointed at a thread where all of the required information is already posted. I dislike repeating myself at the best of times. You had the option from the very start to write in that thread, but no doubt because it disagrees with your position you felt it necessary to inflict the argument on everyone.
2 The assertion of ad hominem is demonstrably untrue. I'm not going to get into an argument on the subject as both of our posts stand in evidence.
Fortunately, other than yourself, nobody is going to take much notice of your definitions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunninglinguist
I started reading this thread backwards but stopped here:
There must have been a more concise way of putting this! Letting your statements tip-toe around their meaning like this is the best way to rob them of their authority.Quote:
The former is defined by having the capacity to have theistic belief but not while simultaneously making no claim that the statement “there is at least one God” is false.
Is it just me or are these lit-net forums particularly prone to excessive wordiness and overly academic posts?
Just a few of the philosophical assumptions made by science:
- The reliability of the senses
- The validity of induction
- The Copernican (mediocrity) principle
- The preferential valuation of parsimony & aesthetics in theory choice
Furthermore, science is simply incapable of tackling these questions:
- The existence of a spiritual reality
- The existence of an afterlife
To assert that science has answered them is incorrect; science cannot answer them because they simply fall beyond its purview. Science assumes methodological naturalism and something like an immaterial spiritual reality or afterlife would be, by definition, beyond material observation. To say that science has answered these question in the negative is to presuppose that the totality of existence is material -- a (non-scientific) philosophical position.
Nor can science comment on questions of value. Material descriptions of that which is are incapable of morphing into behavioral prescriptions. Yet acting to fulfill value-based prescriptions is the basis of rational action and guides our immediate choice-making in daily living. I would say that is more than relevant, especially when on the chief question of life -- "How ought I to live?" -- science can provide no imperative.
Blake said, and I agree with, religions are just images of the truth. In other words they are sounder if taken figuratively instead of literally. For Milton taking a religion literally was to commit the sin of idolatry. I further believe religion is as integral to human nature as art and society. Voltaire said "if God didn't exist it would be necessary to invent him," I think the same of religion.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I don’t know how apt your definition of atheism is. While I have to take your word that most atheists in these coteries you’ve referenced are rationalists and hence theoretical agnostics, I still think the more pedestrian atheist has beliefs in accord with the explicit atheist. And if this is not the case and >50% are in actuality implicit atheists, most theists understand the word atheism as meaning explicit atheism. On these grounds, if effective communication means much, it would be a convenience to define atheism as explicit/theoretical atheism. Of course one cannot change how a society defines a word at a whim, but since definitions are chosen democratically one can cast their vote, so to speak.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Gould preferred the sobriquet of agnostic even though he was a practical atheist, and I would the same. This was presumably partly for appearances and on the grounds that he thought science and religion should not attempt to inform each other. I think his choice rather wise, especially considering that most theists appeal to emotion instead of evidence, hence making appearances and impressions count a great deal towards affecting them and winning them to your point of view. Calling oneself an atheist generally makes the theist feel threatened, puts him off and closes his mind, even if one wouldn’t actually question the existence of God on theoretical grounds.
Furthermore the reasoning showing that the statement “all atheism is a lack of belief” is a categorical error is sound and, I fear, saying that I am making a “word salad” is not a legitimate method of objection and I fear that it reduces the debate to a quality of a youtube one.
Reaching a consensus on a definition is important and useful; it facilitates communication and integration thereby promoting peace and tolerance. I would think that your intentions are pro peace and tolerance.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Of course there were the skeptics, et al before Huxley, but there is a difference between skepticism and agnosticism. You see, skepticism entails agnosticism but agnosticism does not entail skepticism. In other words, agnosticism is only skepticism regarding the theological or existence or nonexistence of God. I do not know enough about Huxley or the history of philosophic ideas before Huxley to say with much certainty if agnosticism existed unnamed and popularly before him or if he was the first to denote its tenets, gave it a name and popularized it; but the latter seems be what the author of the article is saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
For the sake of articulation I never liked how the pedestrian definition of fallacy was synonymous with erroneous, because the academic one is certainly not. And I sort of assumed you want to be articulate instead of muddying the waters. But it is no matter, I’m over it so let’s move on.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
I have read some of the forum, yet I still find defining atheism as purely a lack of belief, or as solely implicit atheism, at best insensible. It is pretty clear it is used at least as a polysemic word.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Atheist
Well, I commit to tolerance and believe it a fine ideal; when you give someone half a chance they are generally well intentioned (and even my first mention of you said I believe you are well intentioned, which I still do), and that matters for a lot to me. Yet in some of these instances of communication I have been reduced to a hypocrite, which I try to terminate by removing myself from the discussion; at that time I could not bear to suffer what I perceived as effrontery, intolerance and close-mindedness. If I have insulted you, I regret it and am sorry, and hope we can forgo the ad hominem henceforth.
Edit:
I thought I summed the distinction up all right, though my double negative still makes me laugh a bit. Here is a more expounded articulation:Quote:
Originally Posted by Cat Square
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implici...plicit_atheism
Err.. yes :D lol, prolixity is all the rage.
I disagree here. Science doesn't make any assumptions at all. Science produces results which are then interpreted by humans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Showtime
Science is a method, not a doctrine.
I see no reason to accept this either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Showtime
If such things exist and are capable of physical action, then they're measurable.
The invisible kind, known only through faith, sure.
Unlike philosophy, eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Showtime
;)
Dude, philosophy is not rubbish but it's not very helpful either. I say it's just food for thought.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vautrin