Famous Athiest, Now Believes In God (not 'christian' God)

[pajarito 0]

Quote

I agree with you. I'm just highlighting that there are problems inherent in holding someone up and saying his conclusions are right about A but wrong about B. Disagreeing with half of someone's conclusion can adversely affect the weight of the remaining half.

True. I just thought it was still significant. He may not agree with my brand of religion, however at least on the point of the existence of God, we can both agree.

[jakee 1,262]

Quote

The only thing we know is that "he follows the evidence wherever it leads"

Tut tut tut, he claims to follow the evidence wherever it leads. You should be the first one to point out that we don't really have enough evidence to decide the validity (or lack of) of his claims. His decision adds no weight to either side and is bizzare to say the least.

He suddenly finds it impossible to say that the universe was created without god, so he decides to believe in god. Then he finds it impossible to say what nature of god could possibly have created the universe. Yeah, the old guy still has the magic.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Ignorance is the curse of God; knowledge is the wing wherewith we fly: William Shakespeare

Side note: How do you know for sure that Shakespeare really wrote that? Do you believe that he did?

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Quote

theism is the basis for atheism.

You've got to be a theist before you can become an atheist?

No but you have to define theism, and in effect, God, before you can profess to disbelieve it. Here's an example.


Do you believe in Pudrucker?

- I don't know what Pudrucker is.

Pudrucker is the giant turtle that shit out the universe.

- No, I don't believe in Pudrucker.


***That's an atheist.


Do you believe in Pudrucker?

- I don't know what Pudrucker is.

Pudrucker can be any one of many things that no one can prove or disprove the existence of.

- I have no idea if I believe in Pudrucker than since Pudrucker could be this jar of mayonaise.

***Not an atheist


In other words, you have to start with a base definition of god before you can disbelieve in god. If there were no one who believed in god, there would be no atheism.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

theism is the basis for atheism.

I guess it makes a kind of sense. If you're not familiar with the concept you can't not believe in it.

Do you believe in snogleflaps? As you've never heard of them (god I hope you haven't ) you can't either believe in them or not believe in them.

Thus if you want to not believe in God, there has to be the concept of God about before you can disbelieve it.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

No but you have to define theism, and in effect, God, before you can profess to disbelieve it.

Sure, but that doesn't make Theism the basis for Atheism. What if you defined Atheism first, then Theism? Then you decided to be an Atheist. I don't know. Just seemed like an awkward statement.

Edited to add: After further thought, I guess you're right. God is the concept. You can't "not" believe in the concept until you know what it is in the first place. Not that you believe it first, however (which is Theism).

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

How do you know for sure that Shakespeare really wrote that?

hehe, Google tells me so.

Came across it somewhere once.

It's original meaning isn't exactly how I'm employing it though.

[jakee 1,262]

Quote

Thus if you want to not believe in God, there has to be the concept of God about before you can disbelieve it.

Not neccesarily. In a society with a complete absense of snogleflaps (whatever the fuck they are) where no one has heard of the existence of snogleflaps then the populace evidently does not believe in the existence of snogleflaps. They cannot be noncomital in their belief in snogleflaps because the merest concept of snogleflaps has never crossed their mind.

(substituting god for snogleflaps will not only make this post more understandable, it will also be easier to read)

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Sinkster 0]

If you think most philosophy is pointless mental masturbation or quixotic pursuits then you think you know more than you really do.

[jakee 1,262]

Quote

Sure, but that doesn't make Theism the basis for Atheism. What if you defined Atheism first, then Theism? Then you decided to be an Atheist. I don't know. Just seemed like an awkward statement.

Whoah. In a religious discussion I actually agree ith you (I think). Atheism can exist without Theism, right? (see my nonsensical post above)

Edit: Oh man, now that you've edited I don't agree with you anymore, well, it had to be too good to be true.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Quote

Sure, but that doesn't make Theism the basis for Atheism. What if you defined Atheism first, then Theism? Then you decided to be an Atheist. I don't know. Just seemed like an awkward statement.

Whoah. In a religious discussion I actually agree ith you (I think). Atheism can exist without Theism, right? (see my nonsensical post above)

Well, in the real sense of the word (see my add above). They're just talking about "knowledge of", however, rather than "belief in" which is the proper definitions of the terms.

[mr2mk1g 10]

I hear you... but I'm not sure I agree.

I'll not bother any further though as I don't think either of us can convince the other about such an abstract notion as the non belief in a concept about which someone has no knowledge.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Quote

Thus if you want to not believe in God, there has to be the concept of God about before you can disbelieve it.

Not neccesarily. In a society with a complete absense of snogleflaps (whatever the fuck they are) where no one has heard of the existence of snogleflaps then the populace evidently does not believe in the existence of snogleflaps. They cannot be noncomital in their belief in snogleflaps because the merest concept of snogleflaps has never crossed their mind.

(substituting god for snogleflaps will not only make this post more understandable, it will also be easier to read)

So, if there are no snogleflaps, no one has ever heard of a snogleflap, who the hell would be going around claiming disbelief of snogleflaps? No one.

Atheism isn't the disbelief of God. It's a denial of the existence of God. It is an affirmative belief in his non-existence. Not just being unaware of him.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Just so everyone's clear ok... I made up the word snogleflaps.

[jakee 1,262]

Quote

Well, in the real sense of the word (see my add above). They're just talking about "knowledge of", however, rather than "belief in" which is the proper definitions of the terms.

Yep I caught that in my edit. I would argue that a person or community with an utter lack of knowledge of theism could then only be described as atheist. They cannot be theist, since they know nothing of the concept, they cannot sit on the fence and be agnostic since to them there is no argument. They can only do what is natural, go through life with no knowledge of and therefore no belief in, God. Atheism.

Edit: Mr2mk1g; whew, I thought I was saying something really rude for a while there.

Phillykev; check the dictionary?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I would argue that a person or community with an utter lack of knowledge of theism could then only be described as atheist.

Then cannot be atheist without knowledge of the concept. I don't think you guys understand the true definition of atheism. It is the denial of god's existence. You can't deny something exists if you've never heard of it.

[mr2mk1g 10]

But the point you're missing is that Atheism is not having no belief in God but activly not believing in God (if that distinction even makes sense).

One is a passive act, the other is active. You can't activly do something in relation to something unless you are conceptually aware of it in the first place.

[winsor 187]

Quote

Quote

theism is the basis for atheism.

You've got to be a theist before you can become an atheist?

No. If you reread what I wrote, you will note that I said nothing so suggest anything similar to such a concept.

The Catholic church was adept at defining competing systems as "the opposition," vilifying them and characterizing them as existing primarily to defy the church. Wiccans are a prime example, since their concept of humanity's place in the universe bore little resemblance to the concept of "witchcraft" as concocted by the church.

People who consider themselves atheists need not have started out as believers, but they have chosen to define themselves in terms of a theist standard.

Theists chose to waste their time assuming fairy tales are valid, atheists chose to waste their time trying to disprove these fairy tales. Both of them consider this nonsense worthy of consideration, from either a pro or con standpoint, and define themselves in terms of their acceptance or rejection of the fairy tales.

If you need something to believe (or disbelieve), knock yourself out. I have found from long and hard experience that it is too much to ask to be left out of it.


Blue skies,

Winsor

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Then cannot be atheist without knowledge of the concept. I don't think you guys understand the true definition of atheism. It is the denial of god's existence. You can't deny something exists if you've never heard of it.

Neither can you deny it until you've understood the concept and decided against it. I agree with you.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

People who consider themselves atheists need not have started out as believers, but they have chosen to define themselves in terms of a theist standard.

I agree.

[jakee 1,262]

Aaah this sucks. I just looked up the definition of disbelief and you guy's are right. I hate it when that happens.

Ok, I need a new word for the concept I'm trying to convey here people!!

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Ok, I need a new word for the concept I'm trying to convey here people!!

"Snogleflap"

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

Aaah this sucks. I just looked up the definition of disbelief and you guy's are right. I hate it when that happens.

Ok, I need a new word for the concept I'm trying to convey here people!!

Ignorance of a topic.

[jakee 1,262]

Ok lets try that out. "due to their total lack of knowledge of the concept of 'God' the people must therefore be considered -snogleflaps-" Well its got a ring to it I'll give you that but I'm not sure its that practical, y'know what I mean.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,262]

Quote

Ignorance of a topic.

It's too general. I want one specific, no wait, I demand one specific word for this subject only.

Hey, unless, you weren't refering to me there were you

Do you want to have an ideagasm?