Deism, Theism and Atheism ...
Treebeard
<allan_c_cybulskie@yahoo.ca>well.
Read the wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism
"Deism (\ˈdi:iz(ə)m\[1] or \ˈdē-ˌi-zəm\)[2] is a religious and
philosophical belief that a supreme being created the universe, and
that this (and religious truth in general) can be determined using
reason and observation of the natural world alone, without the need
for either faith or organized religion. Deists tend to, but do not
necessarily, reject the notion that God intervenes in human affairs,
for example through miracles and revelations. These views contrast
with the dependence on revelations, miracles, and faith found in many
Jewish, Christian, Islamic and other theistic teachings."
That it is indeed religious and believes in a supreme being seems to
be what atheists don't believe in as well, but let's look at theism to
really settle this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism
"Theism in the broadest sense is the belief in at least one deity"
This clearly applies to deism, so this isn't helping the atheist cause
that they wouldn't be wrong if deism was true, but moving on:
"In a more specific sense, theism refers to a particular doctrine
concerning the nature of God and his relationship to the universe.[3]
Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of a God as personal,
present and active in the governance and organization of the world and
the universe. The use of the word theism as indicating a particular
doctrine of monotheism arose in the wake of the scientific revolution
of the seventeenth century to contrast with the then emerging deism
which contended that a God — though transcendent and supreme — did not
intervene in the natural world and could be known rationally but not
via revelation.[4]
The term "theism" derives from the Greek theos meaning God. The term
theism was first used by Ralph Cudworth (1617–1688).[5]
The negation, rejection, or absence of theism is known as atheism or
agnosticism."
So, there is a SPECIFIC sense where they can be distinguished, but
against deists belive in a god, which is the original of the word, and
so this doesn't, again, help the atheist much.
Fortunately, the page ADDRESSES deism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism#Deism
"While the specific definition of theism given above may exclude
deism, deism is included as a form of theism by the most general
definition given above."
So, is atheism supposed to apply to the most general definition, or
the specific one? Seems like it should be the specific one to me, but
if some atheists want to claim that THEIR view isn't that's okay, and
long as they are clear about that and accept that distinction in
atheism, and that atheism in general is about the general and not
specific definition, and therefore that people who say that deism
impacts atheism are not just misinformed about what it means but, in
fact, making a reasonable and logical conclusion about what atheism
generally is.
But we can settle this by appealing to what atheism means:
"Atheism, defined most narrowly, is the position that there are no
deities.[1] More broadly defined, it is the rejection of belief in the
existence of any deities, with or without an assertion that no deities
exist.[2] The broadest definition classifies atheism as the absence of
belief that any deities exist.[3]"
Deism contains a deity, so atheism is not compatible with deism.
Which is what I had argued in the initial thread:
http://groups.google.ca/group/atheism-vs-christianity/msg/e7b5618ba74bb96b?hl=en
"Hair splitting. Deist gods are gods, and atheists in the most basic
definition do not believe in gods. "
So, no, it isn't compatible and my argument was completely correct,
and those denying it are, in fact, hair splitting and redefining
terms.
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>The implication that TB makes that Deism is part of some "atheist cause" is ludicrous and nothing more than a straw man that he has fabricated.
Deism is a form of theism.
A Deist god cannot be falsified and that is the only commentary that atheists make about it. Since it can't be falsified we are agnostic about Deist gods.
The only definition of a Deist god that is unfalsifiable is a generic creator god that has no interest in humanity.
All other definitions of Deist god like the PanDeist one can be falsified because as soon as you add properties those properties can be challenged and require support.
Atheists are agnostic about the generic creator Deist god and acknowledge that those who believe in such can also, and without contradiction to their beliefs be materialist and/or naturalist.
This the position that most atheists take.
TBs gross misrepresentation is nothing more than mental masturbation.
--
"Love is friendship on fire" --Anonymous
"Faith may not move mountains, but you should see what it does to skyscrapers" --Panama Floyd, aa#2015
Simon Ewins
<sjewins@gmail.com>> So, no, it isn't compatible and my argument was completely correct,
> and those denying it are, in fact, hair splitting and redefining
> terms.
I am not redefining anything.
A deist is not a theist or she would be called a theist.
A theist is not a deist or she would be called a deist.
Proving a deistic god does not prove a theistic god.
Proving a theistic god negates a deistic god.
Disproving a theistic god does not disprove a deistic god.
Disproving a deistic god does not disprove a theistic god.
If a deist is not a theist then she is an atheist since she holds no
doctrinal beliefs about God and, Wiki notwithstanding, theism is a
doctrinal belief in a god.
My atheism is not a blanket rejection of all gods it is a rejection of
doctrinal beliefs about a god. My adeism is the rejection of the idea of
an intelligent force that caused the creation of the universe, not a
rejection of an unintelligent force.
--
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not
prove anything." - Nietzsche
"I've observed that there are more lines formed than things worth
waiting for."
[Robert Brault, www.robertbrault.com]
Treebeard
<allan_c_cybulskie@yahoo.ca>any debating with her, and it seems like she's saying something later
in the post other than what she started with. Since one of the
reasons I do not reply to her IS these sorts of confusions, I'm not
bothering to even continue to ask for an apology, since it isn't clear
what misrepresentation and strawman she's claiming I'm making.
I apologize for any inconvenience this might have caused.
Simon Ewins
<sjewins@gmail.com>Not removed here. It is forever housed in my archives.
--
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not
prove anything." - Nietzsche
"I slept with faith and found a corpse in my arms on awakening; I drank
and danced all night with doubt and found her a virgin in the morning."
[Aleister Crowley, Book of Lies]
Treebeard
<allan_c_cybulskie@yahoo.ca>On Feb 21, 8:57 am, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [Treebeard]
>
> > So, no, it isn't compatible and my argument was completely correct,
> > and those denying it are, in fact, hair splitting and redefining
> > terms.
>
> I am not redefining anything.
>
> A deist is not a theist or she would be called a theist.
Deists are theists in the general sense; it's a subset of theism.
Read the quotes and the pages and argue against them, if you'd like.
>
> A theist is not a deist or she would be called a deist.
Yes, you can be a theist without being a deist. This does not mean
that deists do not fall under the general definition of theist, which
the quotes proved that yes, in fact, they do. They have a specific
conception of god, but it's still a god.
>
> Proving a deistic god does not prove a theistic god.
But it proves a god, which is what atheists are saying they don't
believe in. Gods, in general. If they believe in specific
conceptions of gods, they're theists ... even if that's a deist god.
>
> Proving a theistic god negates a deistic god.
Hard to say. Are the Greek gods theistic gods?
>
> Disproving a theistic god does not disprove a deistic god.
>
> Disproving a deistic god does not disprove a theistic god.
>
> If a deist is not a theist then she is an atheist since she holds no
> doctrinal beliefs about God and, Wiki notwithstanding, theism is a
> doctrinal belief in a god.
Not only wiki, but TG disagrees with you. And you've given bare
assertions, I've given definitions.
>
> My atheism is not a blanket rejection of all gods it is a rejection of
> doctrinal beliefs about a god. My adeism is the rejection of the idea of
> an intelligent force that caused the creation of the universe, not a
> rejection of an unintelligent force.
So, your excuse is that you are defining your atheism god by god,
then? Again, all the definitions disagree with you, but hey, say what
you want ...
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>
On Feb 21, 8:51 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't normally bother with TB but every so often he posts the most
> ridiculous things.
>
> The implication that TB makes that Deism is part of some "atheist cause" is
> ludicrous and nothing more than a straw man that he has fabricated.
>
> Deism is a form of theism.
I'm going to break my non-reply to you for just this once.
Read the thread I linked. Both Simon and Kippers insisted that if
deism were true their atheism would not be impacted, and that they'd
still be atheists. You are agreeing WITH ME that that is ridiculous.
I just read it after I posted this.
1. Simon is wrong, in my opinion.
2. Kippers takes the same position I do and you've misunderstood him.
I agree with your position on *that* thread.
Your position on this thread was confusing and so if I misunderstood then I apologize.
Obviously if a Deist god was proven to exist incontrovertibly, accepting it would be accepting a form of theism.
It would be a god which would have no impact on our world and therefore no impact on our beliefs because atheism isn't a doctrine.
However, we would no longer have a lack of belief in gods and if that is your position than I agree with you completely.
--
Treebeard
<allan_c_cybulskie@yahoo.ca>On Feb 21, 9:00 am, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [Treebeard]
>
> > I had replied to TG, but removed the post. I don't want to get into
> > any debating with her, and it seems like she's saying something later
> > in the post other than what she started with. Since one of the
> > reasons I do not reply to her IS these sorts of confusions, I'm not
> > bothering to even continue to ask for an apology, since it isn't clear
> > what misrepresentation and strawman she's claiming I'm making.
>
> > I apologize for any inconvenience this might have caused.
>
> Not removed here. It is forever housed in my archives.
It is removed from the site, not from people's E-mails, which was why
I made the post explaining it and apologizing for inconveniencing
people.
Did you have a point?
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>Too late. I receive posts in my email so I don't know if they've been deleted.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
Treebeard
<allan_c_cybulskie@yahoo.ca>On Feb 21, 9:03 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 21, 8:51 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I don't normally bother with TB but every so often he posts the most
> > > ridiculous things.
>
> > > The implication that TB makes that Deism is part of some "atheist cause"
> > is
> > > ludicrous and nothing more than a straw man that he has fabricated.
>
> > > Deism is a form of theism.
>
> > I'm going to break my non-reply to you for just this once.
>
> > Read the thread I linked. Both Simon and Kippers insisted that if
> > deism were true their atheism would not be impacted, and that they'd
> > still be atheists. You are agreeing WITH ME that that is ridiculous.
>
> I just read it after I posted this.
>
> 1. Simon is wrong, in my opinion.
> 2. Kippers takes the same position I do and you've misunderstood him.
>
> I agree with your position on *that* thread.
>
> Your position on this thread was confusing and so if I misunderstood then I
> apologize.
>
> Obviously if a Deist god was proven to exist incontrovertibly, accepting it
> would be accepting a form of theism.
>
> It would be a god which would have no impact on our world and therefore no
> impact on our beliefs because atheism isn't a doctrine.
>
> However, we would no longer have a lack of belief in gods and if that is
> your position than I agree with you completely.
I will really suspend my replying restriction this time -- no removing
the post -- simply to say "Thank you".
However, I do think that Kippers' position is similar to Simon's. If
he'd accept that he could no longer be an atheist if a deist god was
proven true, I'll exclude him from that and admit that I was
misinterpreting him.
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>The only time this would *not* apply, and this may be what Kippers is talking about, is in the case of a Pantheist "god" where the god is simply a redefinition of the word "nature" or "universe".
Spinoza's god would be an example of this.
A belief in Spinoza's "god" is not Deism or a god belief.
It's simply a semantics game where Spinoza uses the word "god" to refer to "nature".
--
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>However, since it can't be falsified agnosticism is the only position that most atheists will consider on that type of god.
Simon Ewins
<sjewins@gmail.com>> So, your excuse is that you are defining your atheism god by god,
> then? Again, all the definitions disagree with you, but hey, say what
> you want ...
It is not an excuse. I simply don't fit your atheist pigeon-hole. I
disagree with many atheists. In fact I often do not refer to myself as
an atheist because some, like you, have a different idea of atheism than
I do.
So, from now on don't consider me an atheist, I don't fit your mold.
I do not believe in the existence of any god that is considered to be
intelligent and acts with purpose and intent. I do not rule out the
existence of an eternal force that created our universe, in fact I
completely support it. I do not view theism and deism and the same or
classes of the same set. I am not a deist because I see no reason to
consider an eternal force anything other than natural and therefore
unqualified to be called a god.
So, now that has been cleared up, I repeat, proving a deistic god does
not negate my atheism.
--
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not
prove anything." - Nietzsche
"To believe with certainty we must begin with doubting."
[Stanislaus I of Poland]
Simon Ewins
<sjewins@gmail.com>> It is removed from the site, not from people's E-mails, which was why
> I made the post explaining it and apologizing for inconveniencing
> people.
>
> Did you have a point?
Once written words are immortal.
--
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not
prove anything." - Nietzsche
"Life has the name of life, but in reality it is death."
[Heraclitus, Eustathius ad Iliad]
Simon Ewins
<sjewins@gmail.com>> I do not view theism and deism and the same or classes of the same set
should be
I do not view theism and deism as the same or classes of the same set
--
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not
prove anything." - Nietzsche
"Just as a candle cannot burn without fire, men cannot live without a
spiritual life."
[Buddha]
Gokudomatic
<gourry.gabrief@gmail.com>the reference. Like that, we don't care about how people redefined
words through time.
> http://groups.google.ca/group/atheism-vs-christianity/msg/e7b5618ba74...
LL
<llpens@aol.com>On Feb 21, 5:57 am, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
If a deist is not a theist then she is an atheist since she holds no
doctrinal beliefs about God and, Wiki notwithstanding, theism is a
doctrinal belief in a god.
LL: An atheist is not one merely with no doctrinal beliefs about god.
It's one who has no belief in any god whatsoever. A deist is a theist
because he/she believes a god exists or existed at one time. That's
all it takes to be a theist. Giving up that belief and all beliefs
about god(s) is all it takes to be an atheist. Doctrine has nothing to
do with it one way or the other.
*******************************
LL
<llpens@aol.com>On Feb 21, 6:15 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would also add to this that if someone were a Deist, given that their
> definition of a god is kind of useless where theology is concerned, it would
> be a legitimate question to ask they why they would bother believing in such
> a god.
>
> However, since it can't be falsified agnosticism is the only position that
> most atheists will consider on that type of god.
LL: But if they are "agnostic" about all types of god, they are
atheists, whether they like the word or not. All it takes to be an
atheist is a lack of belief and agnostics as well as professed
atheists have no belief in any god. That agnostics claim to not know
does not make then nonatheists, they still don't believe in any god.
If they do, they're theists, plain and simple.
*****************
*************************
>
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 9:09 AM, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com>wrote:
LL
<llpens@aol.com>On Feb 21, 7:49 am, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [Treebeard]
>
> > So, your excuse is that you are defining your atheism god by god,
> > then? Again, all the definitions disagree with you, but hey, say what
> > you want ...
>
> It is not an excuse. I simply don't fit your atheist pigeon-hole. I
> disagree with many atheists. In fact I often do not refer to myself as
> an atheist because some, like you, have a different idea of atheism than
> I do.
>
> So, from now on don't consider me an atheist, I don't fit your mold.
>
> I do not believe in the existence of any god that is considered to be
> intelligent and acts with purpose and intent. I do not rule out the
> existence of an eternal force that created our universe, in fact I
> completely support it. I do not view theism and deism and the same or
> classes of the same set. I am not a deist because I see no reason to
> consider an eternal force anything other than natural and therefore
> unqualified to be called a god.
>
> So, now that has been cleared up, I repeat, proving a deistic god does
> not negate my atheism.
LL: Absolutely right! ;-)
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>LL: But if they are "agnostic" about all types of god, they are
On Feb 21, 6:15 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would also add to this that if someone were a Deist, given that their
> definition of a god is kind of useless where theology is concerned, it would
> be a legitimate question to ask they why they would bother believing in such
> a god.
>
> However, since it can't be falsified agnosticism is the only position that
> most atheists will consider on that type of god.
atheists, whether they like the word or not. All it takes to be an
atheist is a lack of belief and agnostics as well as professed
atheists have no belief in any god. That agnostics claim to not know
does not make then nonatheists, they still don't believe in any god.
If they do, they're theists, plain and simple.
The point is that there is a difference between a statement of knowledge and a statement of belief and that is the point that you appear to miss each and every time this discussion comes up.
A statement of knowledge is not and cannot be equivalent to a statement of belief.
Agnosticism is a statement of knowledge. Either we can or cannot *know* that gods exist. This statement requires *support*.
Atheism is a statement of belief and requires no *support*.
They are different animals for that reason.
An atheist can lack a belief in gods and be agnostic about unfalsifiable gods because we cannot *know* whether unfalsifiable gods exist or not.
We can *know* that claimed gods like the Abrahamic God does not exist and be atheist and *not* agnostic about the Abrahamic God.
Hope this clears up your confusion once and for all.
I agree that the *end result* is the same and they are not mutually exclusive but you are quite wrong to claim that agnosticism and atheism are the same thing.
As I said. A statement of belief is not the same thing as a statement of knowledge.
Simon Ewins
<sjewins@gmail.com>> LL: An atheist is not one merely with no doctrinal beliefs about god.
> It's one who has no belief in any god whatsoever. A deist is a theist
> because he/she believes a god exists or existed at one time. That's
> all it takes to be a theist. Giving up that belief and all beliefs
> about god(s) is all it takes to be an atheist. Doctrine has nothing to
> do with it one way or the other.
Then it shouldn't have -ism at the end. That suffix indicates a
doctrine, belief or principle. None of which should (in my view of
atheism) be applied to a word describing a lack of belief, period. It is
a lack of theism and theism is theos- God, -ism doctrine. IOW, a
doctrine, belief or set of principles concerning theos, God.
So etymologically atheism is a lack of a doctrine, belief or principles
concerning God. It is actually possible to believe in the existence of
God but to form no doctrinal beliefs, principles et. al.
I have met some of these people who believe that God exists but form no
beliefs about it beyond a definition that usually involves intelligence
and participation in reality. They, IOW, have no theism but still
believe, they are atheists who believe in the existence of God.
These days, new atheists, especially, seem to be placing enough rules
and structure on atheism that it is starting to look like it has some
sort of doctrinal aspects. This revolts me. I prefer the simpler
etymological approach that has served me well through over 50 years of
atheism.
I'm sure we disagree but that is my perspective for future reference.
--
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not
prove anything." - Nietzsche
"The foot feels the foot when it feels the ground."
[Buddha]
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>[LL]Then it shouldn't have -ism at the end. That suffix indicates a doctrine, belief or principle. None of which should (in my view of atheism) be applied to a word describing a lack of belief, period. It is a lack of theism and theism is theos- God, -ism doctrine. IOW, a doctrine, belief or set of principles concerning theos, God.
LL: An atheist is not one merely with no doctrinal beliefs about god.
It's one who has no belief in any god whatsoever. A deist is a theist
because he/she believes a god exists or existed at one time. That's
all it takes to be a theist. Giving up that belief and all beliefs
about god(s) is all it takes to be an atheist. Doctrine has nothing to
do with it one way or the other.
It's a lack of both god belief and doctrinal beliefs. That is it's actual history.
And that is why people in the 17th century when the word was born differentiated between atheists and Deists.
If atheism meant what you claimed then there would be no need for Deists to have a separate word to identify themselves since they would have just called themselves atheists in the 17th century and beyond.
Simon Ewins
<sjewins@gmail.com>> If atheism meant what you claimed then there would be no need for Deists
> to have a separate word to identify themselves since they would have
> just called themselves atheists in the 17th century and beyond.
Sorry, the etymology speaks for itself.
--
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not
prove anything." - Nietzsche
"Tomorrow always comes, and today is never yesterday."
[S.A. Sachs]
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>[Trance Gemini]Sorry, the etymology speaks for itself.
If atheism meant what you claimed then there would be no need for Deists
to have a separate word to identify themselves since they would have
just called themselves atheists in the 17th century and beyond.
And part of the etymology is actual usage which contradicts your interpretation.
Simon Ewins
<sjewins@gmail.com>> And part of the etymology is actual usage which contradicts your
> interpretation.
Etymology is roots, not common usage. I am aware of your rather dogmatic
view of atheism, we disagree.
Oxford English Dictionary:
etymology
(ɛtɪˈmɒlədʒɪ)
1. a.1.a The process of tracing out and describing the elements of a
word with their modifications of form and sense.
b.1.b An instance of this process; an account of the formation and
radical signification of a word.
c.1.c The facts relating to the formation or derivation (of a word). (In
16–17th c. occur confused expressions such as ‘the etymology comes
from,’ ‘to derive the etymology from’.)
†d.1.d Etymological sense, original meaning. Obs.
2.2 That branch of linguistic science which is concerned with
determining the origin of words.
--
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not
prove anything." - Nietzsche
"Have compassion for all beings, rich and poor alike; each has their
suffering. Some suffer too much, others too little."
[Buddha]
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>[Trance Gemini]Etymology is roots, not common usage. I am aware of your rather dogmatic view of atheism, we disagree.
And part of the etymology is actual usage which contradicts your
interpretation.
Oxford English Dictionary:
etymology
(ɛtɪˈmɒlədʒɪ)
1. a.1.a The process of tracing out and describing the elements of a word with their modifications of form and sense.
What do you think the phrase "modifications of form and sense" means?
Items 1.a.
The "sense" of a word refers to it's usage.
And "dogmatic" doesn't mean anyone who disagrees with you.
Simon Ewins
<sjewins@gmail.com>> And "dogmatic" doesn't mean anyone who disagrees with you.
Very true.n Hopefully you will know what I mean when I refer to myself
as an atheist. If you disagree feel free to call me whatever you like.
--
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not
prove anything." - Nietzsche
"There's more to the truth than just the facts."
[Author Unknown]
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>[Trance Gemini]Very true.n Hopefully you will know what I mean when I refer to myself as an atheist. If you disagree feel free to call me whatever you like.
And "dogmatic" doesn't mean anyone who disagrees with you.
That doesn't mean that I won't dispute you when you bring it up in the same way that I dispute LL every time she makes her claim that agnosticism and atheism is the same thing. She's wrong.
And IMO you're wrong.
Simon Ewins
<sjewins@gmail.com>> That doesn't mean that I won't dispute you
Feel free. I know what I believe and don't care what label it has as
long as someone doesn't try to tell me what I believe. If what I believe
doesn't fit you idea of an atheist then call me something else.
For you future reference:
I don't accept the idea that there exists anything called a god that is
intelligent or acts with intent or purpose. Further I do not believe
that the statement "God exists." is coherent.
Label: ?????
I don't really give a rat's ass.
--
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not
prove anything." - Nietzsche
"Just as a candle cannot burn without fire, men cannot live without a
spiritual life."
[Buddha]
Dead Kennedy
<dead.kennedy@live.co.uk>believe. It must be nice to be humble.
Treebeard
<allan_c_cybulskie@yahoo.ca>On Feb 22, 10:34 am, Dead Kennedy <dead.kenn...@live.co.uk> wrote:
> oh goody, a theist telling atheists (and deists) just what they
> believe. It must be nice to be humble.
I provide sources, so it isn't just that. But thanks for playing.
> > terms.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
LL
<llpens@aol.com>
LL: Good. Glad we agree. That was exactly the point I was making when
I wrote: "But if they are "agnostic" about all types of god, they are
atheists, whether they like the word or not. All it takes to be an
atheist is a lack of belief and agnostics as well as professed
atheists have no belief in any god. That agnostics claim to not know
does not make then nonatheists, they still don't believe in any god.
If they do, they're theists, plain and simple."
In other words, nobody "knows" anything about any supernatural entity.
************88888888
LL
<llpens@aol.com>On Feb 21, 1:29 pm, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> [LL]
>
> > LL: An atheist is not one merely with no doctrinal beliefs about god.
> > It's one who has no belief in any god whatsoever. A deist is a theist
> > because he/she believes a god exists or existed at one time. That's
> > all it takes to be a theist. Giving up that belief and all beliefs
> > about god(s) is all it takes to be an atheist. Doctrine has nothing to
> > do with it one way or the other.
>
> Then it shouldn't have -ism at the end. That suffix indicates a
> doctrine, belief or principle. None of which should (in my view of
> atheism) be applied to a word describing a lack of belief, period. It is
> a lack of theism and theism is theos- God, -ism doctrine. IOW, a
> doctrine, belief or set of principles concerning theos, God.
>
> So etymologically atheism is a lack of a doctrine, belief or principles
> concerning God. It is actually possible to believe in the existence of
> God but to form no doctrinal beliefs, principles et. al.
LL: You're right. But I didn't bring the word into the language.
Others did, so we're pretty much stuck with it, as etymologically
incorrect as it is.
>
Simon: I have met some of these people who believe that God exists
but form no
> beliefs about it beyond a definition that usually involves intelligence
> and participation in reality. They, IOW, have no theism but still
> believe, they are atheists who believe in the existence of God.
LL: They can call it anything they like, but it seems to me that if a
person believes in a god even if they "don't form any beliefs about it
beyond a definitions that involves intelligence and participation with
reality" they are still believing in some kind of god. To take the
position that a god could exists is not a belief that one does.
>
Simon: These days, new atheists, especially, seem to be placing
enough rules
> and structure on atheism that it is starting to look like it has some
> sort of doctrinal aspects. This revolts me. I prefer the simpler
> etymological approach that has served me well through over 50 years of
> atheism.
>
> I'm sure we disagree but that is my perspective for future reference.
LL: We do agree, at least about 99.9%. It doesn't take doctrine,
however, to be a theist. All it takes is a belief that some god
exists, somewhere, somehow, in some form. And I mean belief, not
speculation that a god could be possible supernaturally.
*****************
LL
<llpens@aol.com>On Feb 21, 1:37 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [LL]
>
> > LL: An atheist is not one merely with no doctrinal beliefs about god.
> >> It's one who has no belief in any god whatsoever. A deist is a theist
> >> because he/she believes a god exists or existed at one time. That's
> >> all it takes to be a theist. Giving up that belief and all beliefs
> >> about god(s) is all it takes to be an atheist. Doctrine has nothing to
> >> do with it one way or the other.
>
> > Then it shouldn't have -ism at the end. That suffix indicates a doctrine,
> > belief or principle. None of which should (in my view of atheism) be applied
> > to a word describing a lack of belief, period. It is a lack of theism and
> > theism is theos- God, -ism doctrine. IOW, a doctrine, belief or set of
> > principles concerning theos, God.
>
> It's a lack of both god belief and doctrinal beliefs. That is it's actual
> history.
>
> And that is why people in the 17th century when the word was born
> differentiated between atheists and Deists.
>
> If atheism meant what you claimed then there would be no need for Deists to
> have a separate word to identify themselves since they would have just
> called themselves atheists in the 17th century and beyond.
LL: A lot of people would call themselves anything to avoid the word
atheist. I don't think the deists were necessarily differentiating
themselves from atheists as much as they were differentiating
themselves from Christians and perhaps other religions.They thought
they could get themselves off the religion hook by saying they
believed in a creator god who did not involve himself any further with
humanity. But IMO, believing in a deistic god is still a belief in a
god. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this fine point.
*****************************
LL
<llpens@aol.com>On Feb 21, 2:03 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>A
In other words, nobody "knows" anything about any supernatural entity.
And this is where I disagree you.
Some theists think they know and others know they don't know but they believe anyway.
So a person can be an agnostic theist.
And some atheists like me know that there is no Abrahamic God and are not agnostic about the Abrahamic God. We are only agnostic about Deist gods.
Other atheists are agnostic about all gods.
Other atheists are not agnostic about any gods.
You are ignoring all of those differences.
************88888888
>
> --
> "Love is friendship on fire" --Anonymous
>
> "Faith may not move mountains, but you should see what it does to
> skyscrapers" --Panama Floyd, aa#2015
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>My point is that Deism is theism not atheism. So unless you're saying it's atheism, we agree.
LL
<llpens@aol.com>On Feb 21, 2:03 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > [Trance Gemini]
>
> > And "dogmatic" doesn't mean anyone who disagrees with you.
>
> > Very true.n Hopefully you will know what I mean when I refer to myself as
> > an atheist. If you disagree feel free to call me whatever you like.
>
> That doesn't mean that I won't dispute you when you bring it up in the same
> way that I dispute LL every time she makes her claim that agnosticism and
> atheism is the same thing. She's wrong.
>
> And IMO you're wrong.
LL: How am I wrong? Does an agnostic have belief in a god? Does an
atheist? Does an atheist claim to have knowledge that god does not
exist? How do you differentiate between the two? An agnostic is
referring to himself as one who had no knowledge about any god and an
atheist is defining himself as one who has no belief in any god.
Therefore, an agnostic also has no belief in any god, so he's an
atheist by definition. Most atheists do not claim to have any
knowledge of god, either, so they are agnostics by definition. These
terms are not mutually exclusive, which was my point. The reason I
make the argument many times is that most people don't understand that
using the term "agnostic" does not mean the person so described is not
an atheist. And many of those same people insist that an atheist is a
person who knows there is no god. This, IMO, is incorrect. Neither can
possibly know anything about the existence of any god or gods. But
neither have a belief in any god, either.
*************
**************
LL
<llpens@aol.com>On Feb 22, 7:38 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Feb 22, 10:34 am, Dead Kennedy <dead.kenn...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > oh goody, a theist telling atheists (and deists) just what they
> > believe. It must be nice to be humble.
>
> I provide sources, so it isn't just that. But thanks for playing.
LL: Only invalid sources. Only when you come up with a "source" that
is unassailable and proven to be true will you actually have a source.
Until then, your sources are worthless.
***************************************
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>
On Feb 21, 2:03 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:LL: How am I wrong? Does an agnostic have belief in a god?
> > [Trance Gemini]
>
> > And "dogmatic" doesn't mean anyone who disagrees with you.
>
> > Very true.n Hopefully you will know what I mean when I refer to myself as
> > an atheist. If you disagree feel free to call me whatever you like.
>
> That doesn't mean that I won't dispute you when you bring it up in the same
> way that I dispute LL every time she makes her claim that agnosticism and
> atheism is the same thing. She's wrong.
>
> And IMO you're wrong.
An agnostic doesn't know.
A theist can believe and not know.
Therefore an agnostic can be an atheist or a theist.
Does an
atheist? Does an atheist claim to have knowledge that god does not
exist? How do you differentiate between the two?
Agnosticism is a statement of knowledge which states the existence of god(s) is unknown or unknowable.
An atheist can be agnostic about the Deist god and not agnostic about other.
They are two completely distinct and separate concepts and can agnosticism can be applied to both atheism and theism.
An agnostic is
referring to himself as one who had no knowledge
No, an agnostic simply states the existence of gods is unknown or unknowable.
That is not in contradiction with theism where a person can believe but not know.
about any god and an
atheist is defining himself as one who has no belief in any god.
Therefore, an agnostic also has no belief in any god, so he's an
atheist by definition. Most atheists do not claim to have any
knowledge of god, either, so they are agnostics by definition.
Wrong. See above.
These
terms are not mutually exclusive,
Yes. They are mutually exclusive and mean completely different things.
which was my point. The reason I
make the argument many times is that most people don't understand that
using the term "agnostic" does not mean the person so described is not
an atheist. And many of those same people insist that an atheist is a
person who knows there is no god. This, IMO, is incorrect. Neither can
possibly know anything about the existence of any god or gods. But
neither have a belief in any god, either.
See above.
--
Treebeard
<allan_c_cybulskie@yahoo.ca>On Feb 22, 4:07 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Feb 21, 2:03 pm, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Simon Ewins <sjew...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > [Trance Gemini]
>
> > > And "dogmatic" doesn't mean anyone who disagrees with you.
>
> > > Very true.n Hopefully you will know what I mean when I refer to myself as
> > > an atheist. If you disagree feel free to call me whatever you like.
>
> > That doesn't mean that I won't dispute you when you bring it up in the same
> > way that I dispute LL every time she makes her claim that agnosticism and
> > atheism is the same thing. She's wrong.
>
> > And IMO you're wrong.
>
> LL: How am I wrong? Does an agnostic have belief in a god?
I do; I'm an agnostic and a theist.
> Does an
> atheist? Does an atheist claim to have knowledge that god does not
> exist?
Some do.
> How do you differentiate between the two?
Start with the stronger claim of agnosticism, which is that the
concept of god is such that it can never be proven to the standards of
knowledge. Now, since this says nothing about belief ...
> An agnostic is
> referring to himself as one who had no knowledge about any god
No. They are always taking the stronger stance that, to some degree,
it is not POSSIBLE to have such knowledge, not just that they,
personally, don't have it. Weaker forms are claims that currently
there is not enough information to know it, but that it might be known
in the future. Stronger claims are that it cannot be known in
principle, and so that information/evidence can never be provided.
I'm an agnostic of the latter sort.
> and an
> atheist is defining himself as one who has no belief in any god.
> Therefore, an agnostic also has no belief in any god, so he's an
> atheist by definition.
One can believe without knowing, thus your contention doesn't work.
> Most atheists do not claim to have any
> knowledge of god, either, so they are agnostics by definition. These
> terms are not mutually exclusive, which was my point.
You've gone far beyond "not mutually exclusive", which is what TG was,
in fact, calling you out on.
> The reason I
> make the argument many times is that most people don't understand that
> using the term "agnostic" does not mean the person so described is not
> an atheist.
But that doesn't mean they ARE an atheist either, which seems to be
what you're suggesting. Although perhaps that interpretation is
wrong ...
And many of those same people insist that an atheist is a
> person who knows there is no god. This, IMO, is incorrect. Neither can
> possibly know anything about the existence of any god or gods. But
> neither have a belief in any god, either.
>
> *************
>
> **************
>
>
>
>
>
> > --
> > "Love is friendship on fire" --Anonymous
>
> > "Faith may not move mountains, but you should see what it does to
> > skyscrapers" --Panama Floyd, aa#2015- Hide quoted text -
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>LL: Only invalid sources. Only when you come up with a "source" that
On Feb 22, 7:38 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Feb 22, 10:34 am, Dead Kennedy <dead.kenn...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > oh goody, a theist telling atheists (and deists) just what they
> > believe. It must be nice to be humble.
>
> I provide sources, so it isn't just that. But thanks for playing.
is unassailable and proven to be true will you actually have a source.
Until then, your sources are worthless.
While his OP was confusing his sources were perfectly valid and do support his position which IMO is correct.
Being a theist doesn't make him wrong by default and the position he's taking is that has been taken by most atheists on this site.
--
Treebeard
<allan_c_cybulskie@yahoo.ca>On Feb 22, 4:10 pm, LL <llp...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Feb 22, 7:38 am, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 22, 10:34 am, Dead Kennedy <dead.kenn...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > oh goody, a theist telling atheists (and deists) just what they
> > > believe. It must be nice to be humble.
>
> > I provide sources, so it isn't just that. But thanks for playing.
>
> LL: Only invalid sources. Only when you come up with a "source" that
> is unassailable and proven to be true will you actually have a source.
> Until then, your sources are worthless.
News flash: no one use wiki at ALL anymore to support ANYTHING,
because it is not unassailable and not proven to be true.
Heck, I pointed out why the wiki definitions fit and logically worked
out. If you dislike that, address the arguments.
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Dead Kennedy
<dead.kennedy@live.co.uk>So if I'm getting the above right, you believe in a god (the abrahamic
one in your case) that you think can never be proven in principal.
WTF are you going to be doing during this "afterlife" of yours?
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Treebeard
<allan_c_cybulskie@yahoo.ca>Well, that includes "reasonably". I do think that dying will settle
the issue, but it's not a test that anyone's going to want to run.
Kippers
<robin@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk>On 21 Feb, 14:09, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 9:06 AM, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 21, 9:03 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 8:55 AM, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca
> > >wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 21, 8:51 am, Trance Gemini <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > I don't normally bother with TB but every so often he posts the most
> > > > > ridiculous things.
>
> > > > > The implication that TB makes that Deism is part of some "atheist
> > cause"
> > > > is
> > > > > ludicrous and nothing more than a straw man that he has fabricated.
>
> > > > > Deism is a form of theism.
>
> > > > I'm going to break my non-reply to you for just this once.
>
> > > > Read the thread I linked. Both Simon and Kippers insisted that if
> > > > deism were true their atheism would not be impacted, and that they'd
> > > > still be atheists. You are agreeing WITH ME that that is ridiculous.
>
> > > I just read it after I posted this.
>
> > > 1. Simon is wrong, in my opinion.
> > > 2. Kippers takes the same position I do and you've misunderstood him.
>
> > > I agree with your position on *that* thread.
>
> > > Your position on this thread was confusing and so if I misunderstood then
> > I
> > > apologize.
>
> > > Obviously if a Deist god was proven to exist incontrovertibly, accepting
> > it
> > > would be accepting a form of theism.
>
> > > It would be a god which would have no impact on our world and therefore
> > no
> > > impact on our beliefs because atheism isn't a doctrine.
>
> > > However, we would no longer have a lack of belief in gods and if that is
> > > your position than I agree with you completely.
>
> > I will really suspend my replying restriction this time -- no removing
> > the post -- simply to say "Thank you".
>
> > However, I do think that Kippers' position is similar to Simon's. If
> > he'd accept that he could no longer be an atheist if a deist god was
> > proven true, I'll exclude him from that and admit that I was
> > misinterpreting him.
>
> The only time this would *not* apply, and this may be what Kippers is
> talking about, is in the case of a Pantheist "god" where the god is simply a
> redefinition of the word "nature" or "universe".
>
> Spinoza's god would be an example of this.
>
> A belief in Spinoza's "god" is not Deism or a god belief.
>
> It's simply a semantics game where Spinoza uses the word "god" to refer to
> "nature".
>
I don’t normally like to engage in these semantic discussions but as I
am mentioned I feel I should.
For me it all revolves around the definition of “god”.
Its really down to the theist or deist to define what kind of god they
believe in.
After I have received that definition I can claim my self a believer
or disbeliever in the existence of their particular god.
So as pointed out I am a theist to the pantheists, an agnostic to the
deists and an atheist to the Christians.
In this group we primarily discuss the Abrahamic God and in that case
I label myself an atheist.
I have no problem in being labelled something else though, what is
important to me is that people understand what I believe more than
they use the right label for that belief.
Kippers
<robin@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk>> misinterpreting him.- Hide quoted text -
>
From what I have read of Simon my position does seem similar to his in
that neither of us is that concerned over what label you use to
describe our beliefs so long as you understand what they are.
If a deist god was proven to exist so that everyone believed in that
god, whatever its properties, then of course their would be no labels
distinguishing the different beliefs in different kinds of gods and as
a result there would be no Christians or Muslims and no one would be
able to seriously declare a lack of belief in this god, so I agree
there would be no atheists either.
The only possible objection might be whether this god was truly worthy
of that label. If it turned out to be nothing more than an eternal
substance for example then I might question whether the term “god” was
really a useful description for it.
Kippers
<robin@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk>On 22 Feb, 21:16, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > LL: How am I wrong? Does an agnostic have belief in a god?
>
> I do; I'm an agnostic and a theist.
This confuses me though because you are not just an agnostic theist
but an agnostic Christian. So there must be something about the
Christian God, rather than the thousands of other gods which you find
some compelling evidence for. If this is the case then what is that
evidence and in light of it how can you remain agnostic?
<snip>
Treebeard
<allan_c_cybulskie@yahoo.ca>I've never claimed that the Christian God's evidence is, in fact,
inherently more compelling than any other gods'. That's the one I
believe in, and it is indeed at least partly because that was the one
I was raised with. I see no reason to abandon that belief since the
atheist arguments are essentially "You could be wrong". To which I
reply "I don't have the evidence to say that I know, so, yeah, I could
be wrong. Believing requires accepting that you could be wrong. So
why should the fact that I could be wrong impact my belief?"
I don't think the proposition knowable, but since I don't claim to
know that isn't a problem.
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>I don’t normally like to engage in these semantic discussions but as I
am mentioned I feel I should.
For me it all revolves around the definition of “god”.
Its really down to the theist or deist to define what kind of god they
believe in.
After I have received that definition I can claim my self a believer
or disbeliever in the existence of their particular god.
So as pointed out I am a theist to the pantheists, an agnostic to the
deists and an atheist to the Christians.
In this group we primarily discuss the Abrahamic God and in that case
I label myself an atheist.
I have no problem in being labelled something else though, what is
important to me is that people understand what I believe more than
they use the right label for that belief.
In some situations it's just semantics like in the case of the pantheist "god" which is not a god but nature.
However to call yourself a theist based on this would simply cause confusion on this definition and open the door to all kinds of misrepresentations.
However in most cases it's more than that and the conflation of terms results in ridiculous conclusions which result in misrepresenting or creating straw men regarding people's beliefs.
An example of this is when terms like faith and trust are conflated and often completely redefined to support a perspective.
When this is done in debate it's dishonest, it matters and it should be challenged.
The same frequently occurs when discussing the meaning of atheism where the religious claim that atheism is a "religion" or "worldview", etc.
On a debating forum it matters and to just dismiss it as pedantics is quite deceptive given what we're doing here.
So, it's not just a question of a "label" or what label is applied to you. It's much more than that.
Clarity of communication, accurately defining terms on a debating forum can mean the difference between honest debate or deceptive demagoguery.
I don't know about anyone else but that actually matters to me.
Treebeard
<allan_c_cybulskie@yahoo.ca>My concern is to avoid you and Simon playing games with the labels,
adopting the presumptions of the normal, general atheistic belief
system while ditching it only when it becomes inconvenient. If you
aren't following the standard definition, it seems problematic to
bring that up only when someone presumes that you are so that you can
say "No, you're wrong!"
>
> If a deist god was proven to exist so that everyone believed in that
> god, whatever its properties, then of course their would be no labels
> distinguishing the different beliefs in different kinds of gods and as
> a result there would be no Christians or Muslims and no one would be
> able to seriously declare a lack of belief in this god, so I agree
> there would be no atheists either.
Presuming that the proof is not just "At a minimum, there must be at
least a deist god". There's no reason to think that proving a
requirement for a deist god will necessarily disprove all theistic
ones; the deist god could be a theist god.
>
> The only possible objection might be whether this god was truly worthy
> of that label. If it turned out to be nothing more than an eternal
> substance for example then I might question whether the term “god” was
> really a useful description for it.
True, but if that was what it was limited to then it wouldn't be a
deist god.
Kippers
<robin@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk>On 23 Feb, 12:39, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Feb 23, 6:35 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On 22 Feb, 21:16, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > LL: How am I wrong? Does an agnostic have belief in a god?
>
> > > I do; I'm an agnostic and a theist.
>
> > This confuses me though because you are not just an agnostic theist
> > but an agnostic Christian. So there must be something about the
> > Christian God, rather than the thousands of other gods which you find
> > some compelling evidence for. If this is the case then what is that
> > evidence and in light of it how can you remain agnostic?
>
> I've never claimed that the Christian God's evidence is, in fact,
> inherently more compelling than any other gods'. That's the one I
> believe in, and it is indeed at least partly because that was the one
> I was raised with.
So you accept that there is just as much evidence for the God of Islam
or the gods of Hinduism than there is for the god of Christianity but
you have remained a Christian as you were brought up one and therefore
see it as the default position?
> I see no reason to abandon that belief since the
> atheist arguments are essentially "You could be wrong".
You actually have many different arguments against your belief in the
Christian God. For a start you have the argument of every other
religion for which there is the same amount of evidence which
instantly renders your position less likely correct than incorrect.
Even without atheism this should be enough to convince you that
Christianity is more likely to be incorrect than correct and therefore
the label non-Christian would seem more fitting than Christian.
> To which I
> reply "I don't have the evidence to say that I know, so, yeah, >I could
> be wrong. Believing requires accepting that you could be wrong. So
> why should the fact that I could be wrong impact my belief?"
>
I believe I might be wrong that man made global warming is happening.
I believe I might be wrong that other animals are capable of feeling
pain. I believe I might be wrong that the Nazis gassed millions of
Jews to death. However I have enough certainty on these issues that I
think them more likely correct than wrong. Just because I don’t have
100% certainty I don’t label myself agnostic on these positions.
Presumably you have more than 50% certainty that Christianity is
correct hence you being a Christian. If that is true then I am still
intrigued to know what it is about Christianity which makes it far
more likely to be true than all the other religions or athiesm.
> I don't think the proposition knowable, but since I don't claim to
> know that isn't a problem.
But out of all the contradictory unknowable propositions in the world
you have chosen Christianity and labelled yourself an agnostic
Christian. Is there anything other than the fact you were raised a
Christian which makes you use this label?
If not then you are simply a cultural christian which I am also myself
yet only one of us seems to cling to the supernatural tenets of that
religion so there is clearly more to it than that.
Kippers
<robin@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk>Yes I agree it does matter (especially regarding the points of
dishonest equivocation you point out) and of course what we mean by
the words we use is crucial in understanding each other in debates. I
don’t mean to dismiss your efforts to clearly define what these words
mean as a waste of time.
Its just that once I have been speaking to an individual who knows
what my beliefs are then I don’t see the point of discussing what
label they should then use to apply to them, especially given the time
and effort such discussions take.
Kippers
<robin@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk>Just to prove I am not making this up now as a matter on convenience
here is a thread I started a while back explaining my position.
I will deal with your other points tomorrow I have to go home now.
Cheers
Kippers
If you
> aren't following the standard definition, it seems problematic to
> bring that up only when someone presumes that you are so that you can
> say "No, you're wrong!"
>
>
>
> > If a deist god was proven to exist so that everyone believed in that
> > god, whatever its properties, then of course their would be no labels
> > distinguishing the different beliefs in different kinds of gods and as
> > a result there would be no Christians or Muslims and no one would be
> > able to seriously declare a lack of belief in this god, so I agree
> > there would be no atheists either.
>
> Presuming that the proof is not just "At a minimum, there must be at
> least a deist god". There's no reason to think that proving a
> requirement for a deist god will necessarily disprove all theistic
> ones; the deist god could be a theist god.
>
>
>
> > The only possible objection might be whether this god was truly worthy
> > of that label. If it turned out to be nothing more than an eternal
> > substance for example then I might question whether the term “god” was
> > really a useful description for it.
>
> True, but if that was what it was limited to then it wouldn't be a
> deist god.- Hide quoted text -
Treebeard
<allan_c_cybulskie@yahoo.ca>On Feb 23, 11:00 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> On 23 Feb, 12:39, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 23, 6:35 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > On 22 Feb, 21:16, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > > LL: How am I wrong? Does an agnostic have belief in a god?
>
> > > > I do; I'm an agnostic and a theist.
>
> > > This confuses me though because you are not just an agnostic theist
> > > but an agnostic Christian. So there must be something about the
> > > Christian God, rather than the thousands of other gods which you find
> > > some compelling evidence for. If this is the case then what is that
> > > evidence and in light of it how can you remain agnostic?
>
> > I've never claimed that the Christian God's evidence is, in fact,
> > inherently more compelling than any other gods'. That's the one I
> > believe in, and it is indeed at least partly because that was the one
> > I was raised with.
>
> So you accept that there is just as much evidence for the God of Islam
> or the gods of Hinduism than there is for the god of Christianity but
> you have remained a Christian as you were brought up one and therefore
> see it as the default position?
I see it as part of my Web of Belief, where my beliefs are caused by
multiple factors. I am conservative in changing existing beliefs that
seem to be working for me.
>
> > I see no reason to abandon that belief since the
> > atheist arguments are essentially "You could be wrong".
>
> You actually have many different arguments against your belief in the
> Christian God. For a start you have the argument of every other
> religion for which there is the same amount of evidence which
> instantly renders your position less likely correct than incorrect.
> Even without atheism this should be enough to convince you that
> Christianity is more likely to be incorrect than correct and therefore
> the label non-Christian would seem more fitting than Christian.
I don't justify my beliefs based on probabilities and don't think
anyone should. Probabilities change too frequently to be reliable
determinants of what one should believe, especially in cases like the
one you cite where what we have is a vast number of roughly equally
"probable" beliefs. For example, if one belief had a 30% probability
of being true and we had 70 other stances that all had a 1%
probability of being true, is there any reason NOT to prefer the one
that has 30% probability even though it's not likely to be true by the
numbers?
I don't claim that is the case for my religion, but I stop that at the
beginning by asking how it is that we can think that we have the right
probabilities if we don't know which is true. So I prefer to form
beliefs for any proposition that I find important and then act as if
they are true, in accordance with how confident I am of their truth.
And then I let the world correct me.
So far, there's been no actual correction from the world, but I don't
actually expect any until death ...
>
> > To which I
> > reply "I don't have the evidence to say that I know, so, yeah, >I could
> > be wrong. Believing requires accepting that you could be wrong. So
> > why should the fact that I could be wrong impact my belief?"
>
> I believe I might be wrong that man made global warming is happening.
> I believe I might be wrong that other animals are capable of feeling
> pain. I believe I might be wrong that the Nazis gassed millions of
> Jews to death. However I have enough certainty on these issues that I
> think them more likely correct than wrong. Just because I don’t have
> 100% certainty I don’t label myself agnostic on these positions.
>
> Presumably you have more than 50% certainty that Christianity is
> correct hence you being a Christian. If that is true then I am still
> intrigued to know what it is about Christianity which makes it far
> more likely to be true than all the other religions or athiesm.
You are making claims based on a perceived way of doing things that I
do not share and that I argue no one actually does. Has anyone ever
calculated the "probability" or "certainty" of something being true as
being more than 50% when they didn't already believe it? So why are
you so certain that people aren't using a Web of Belief and choosing
to keep the belief that fits best in with that as opposed to
determining real likelihoods? I submit that any likelihood
calculation can be summed up as "This is the one that best suits my
existing beliefs". In fact, I can't see any other way for it to be
done since one has to use what one believes to determine how likely
something is to be true, since that's what models how they think the
world to be.
>
> > I don't think the proposition knowable, but since I don't claim to
> > know that isn't a problem.
>
> But out of all the contradictory unknowable propositions in the world
> you have chosen Christianity and labelled yourself an agnostic
> Christian. Is there anything other than the fact you were raised a
> Christian which makes you use this label?
Well, that I believe in it. You can argue that it is only because I
was raised in it that I believe it, but that goes beyond the label.
>
> If not then you are simply a cultural christian which I am also myself
> yet only one of us seems to cling to the supernatural tenets of that
> religion so there is clearly more to it than that.- Hide quoted text -
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>I see your point and where it doesn't matter I agree it can be ignored.
Of course in the context of discussions it still often has to be clarified.
It gets repetitive and tiresome but sometimes it has to happen in order to keep things clear because people frequently don't remember what's been said and misunderstandings occur or misrepresentations get promulagated.
Answer_42
<ipu.believer@gmail.com>> > interpretation.
>
> Etymology is roots, not common usage. I am aware of your rather dogmatic
> view of atheism, we disagree.
Dogmatic?
You seem to be the dogmatic one... Until I read your comments on the
topic, I had never seen or read a definition of atheism that addressed
"doctrinal god"...
> Oxford English Dictionary:
>
> etymology
>
> (ɛtɪˈmɒlədʒɪ)
>
> 1. a.1.a The process of tracing out and describing the elements of a
> word with their modifications of form and sense.
>
> b.1.b An instance of this process; an account of the formation and
> radical signification of a word.
>
> c.1.c The facts relating to the formation or derivation (of a word). (In
> 16–17th c. occur confused expressions such as ‘the etymology comes
> from,’ ‘to derive the etymology from’.)
>
> †d.1.d Etymological sense, original meaning. Obs.
>
> 2.2 That branch of linguistic science which is concerned with
> determining the origin of words.
In many cases, especially with words that were borrowed from other
languges, as "atheist" was (From Greek through French), we have to
consider meaning "2" (above, in your quote) before considering 1.a
because oftentimes 2 clashes with 1.a.
When 1.a and 2 are at odds, if 2 shows that the word has always had a
meaning that 1.a seems to contradict, then you have to use the meaning
we get from 2.
As far as i can tell, "atheism" came after "athesit." So we have to
look at "atheist" first and see what it means:
"
atheist
1570s, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny the
gods, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea). A
slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (1530s) which is
perhaps from It. atheo "atheist."
"The existence of a world without God seems to me less absurd
than the presence of a God, existing in all his perfection, creating
an imperfect man in order to make him run the risk of Hell." [Armand
Salacrou, "Certitudes et incertitudes," 1943]
Related: Atheistic (1630s).
"
(http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=atheist)
"
atheism
1580s, from Fr. athéisme (16c.), from Gk. atheos "without
god" (see atheist).
"
(http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=atheism&searchmode=none)
So, it seems that atheism came after 10 years after atheist and is not
dependant on the deconstruction you mention, i.e (a+theos) + (ism),
but rather: (a) + (theos) with (ism) added later to turn the people
descriptor into a conceptual noun.
Sometimes usage is at odds with etymology, and we have to favour usage
in those cases.
One can claim all they want that etymologically speaking "gay" is not
about sexuality, and they would be correct, but at the same time, it
would be illogical to refuse to accept the modern usage of the word
simply because of etymological rules. There are many such words whose
meanings are dissociated from their etymological origin, sometime
through usage, sometimes through incorrect appropriation of foreign
words, sometime because the etymology was wrong from the get go...(i.e
people who first started using the words thought that etymologically
speaking they were correct, but unbeknown to them, they were not.)
So, according to the meaning of the word since day one, atheism is
about lacking belief in any god, so that includes deism since deism
rests on the existence of some unknown god.
____________________________________________
We are well aware that religion is not as bad an influence as it was a
short time ago, as history is counted. But it is a sufficiently bad
influence even in modern times, and its reduced viciousness (in
practice) is due plainly enough to its reduced power.
-- Emanuel Haldeman-Julius
Kippers
<robin@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk>On 23 Feb, 12:49, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
<snip>
> My concern is to avoid you and Simon playing games with the labels,
> adopting the presumptions of the normal, general atheistic belief
> system while ditching it only when it becomes inconvenient. If you
> aren't following the standard definition, it seems problematic to
> bring that up only when someone presumes that you are so that you can
> say "No, you're wrong!"
Well now I have proven that this has been my position well before we
had this discussion I hope we can now put that accusation to rest.
>
> > If a deist god was proven to exist so that everyone believed in that
> > god, whatever its properties, then of course their would be no labels
> > distinguishing the different beliefs in different kinds of gods and as
> > a result there would be no Christians or Muslims and no one would be
> > able to seriously declare a lack of belief in this god, so I agree
> > there would be no atheists either.
>
> Presuming that the proof is not just "At a minimum, there must be at
> least a deist god". There's no reason to think that proving a
> requirement for a deist god will necessarily disprove all theistic
> ones; the deist god could be a theist god.
I agree that the proof for at least a deist god with no further
information available could not necessarily rule out the thousands of
theistic god which have been proposed. In fact every religion would
jump on it and claim it supports the existence of their particular
theistic god.
However if it turns out that this deist god has intelligent, human
like emotions, listens to our prayers, cares about our specific sexual
activities and what we eat, likes us to stand in awe of its might,
sends itself down to earth to be crucified etc…. then it would not be
termed a deist god. It would be a theist god and all of us atheist
would be proven wrong. I await that day with baited breath
>
>
>
> > The only possible objection might be whether this god was truly worthy
> > of that label. If it turned out to be nothing more than an eternal
> > substance for example then I might question whether the term “god” was
> > really a useful description for it.
>
> True, but if that was what it was limited to then it wouldn't be a
> deist god.
I would agree that shouldnt be sufficient to meet the term deist god
but if you expanded it to be an eternal substance which somehow caused
the big bang then that would perhaps be a god of deism. It would also
be something for which I have never denied the existence of. The idea
is plausible but as yet without any supporting evidence and certainly
is not the God the Bible speaks of.
Kippers
<robin@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk>On 23 Feb, 16:17, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Feb 23, 11:00 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 23 Feb, 12:39, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 23, 6:35 am, Kippers <ro...@croft6942.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > On 22 Feb, 21:16, Treebeard <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > > > LL: How am I wrong? Does an agnostic have belief in a god?
>
> > > > > I do; I'm an agnostic and a theist.
>
> > > > This confuses me though because you are not just an agnostic theist
> > > > but an agnostic Christian. So there must be something about the
> > > > Christian God, rather than the thousands of other gods which you find
> > > > some compelling evidence for. If this is the case then what is that
> > > > evidence and in light of it how can you remain agnostic?
>
> > > I've never claimed that the Christian God's evidence is, in fact,
> > > inherently more compelling than any other gods'. That's the one I
> > > believe in, and it is indeed at least partly because that was the one
> > > I was raised with.
>
> > So you accept that there is just as much evidence for the God of Islam
> > or the gods of Hinduism than there is for the god of Christianity but
> > you have remained a Christian as you were brought up one and therefore
> > see it as the default position?
>
> I see it as part of my Web of Belief, where my beliefs are caused by
> multiple factors. I am conservative in changing existing beliefs that
> seem to be working for me.
>
But it doesn’t seem your belief in Christianity is working for you.
It seems that it has failed to the point where you defiantly cling
onto the label even if you have to pre-fix it with the word “agnostic”
in a tacit admission that it cannot be logically or empirically
justified anymore.
If I begin to have serious doubts over free market capitalism I would
not label myself an agnostic capitalist I would simply stop referring
to myself as a capitalist at all. Unless of course I had some
emotional attachment to it or didn’t want to admit I had wasted a
large part of my life supporting something I no longer believed in.
>
>
> > > I see no reason to abandon that belief since the
> > > atheist arguments are essentially "You could be wrong".
>
> > You actually have many different arguments against your belief in the
> > Christian God. For a start you have the argument of every other
> > religion for which there is the same amount of evidence which
> > instantly renders your position less likely correct than incorrect.
> > Even without atheism this should be enough to convince you that
> > Christianity is more likely to be incorrect than correct and therefore
> > the label non-Christian would seem more fitting than Christian.
>
> I don't justify my beliefs based on probabilities and don't think
> anyone should.
I completely disagree with this. Unless you profess dogmatic
certainty on subjects (something which neither of us seem to do) then
belief manifestly is about probability rather than dictomatic
certainty or lack thereof.
>Probabilities change too frequently to be reliable
> determinants of what one should believe, especially in cases >like the
> one you cite where what we have is a vast number of roughly equally
> "probable" beliefs. For example, if one belief had a 30% probability
> of being true and we had 70 other stances that all had a 1%
> probability of being true, is there any reason NOT to prefer the one
> that has 30% probability even though it's not likely to be true by the
> numbers?
In a situation such as this the rational position to take would have
to take these probabilities into account. You would not profess a
strong belief in the 30% position but would claim it the most likely
of all the possibilities on offer.
>
> I don't claim that is the case for my religion, but I stop that at the
> beginning by asking how it is that we can think that we have the right
> probabilities if we don't know which is true. So I prefer to form
> beliefs for any proposition that I find important and then act as if
> they are true, in accordance with how confident I am of their truth.
> And then I let the world correct me.
>
> So far, there's been no actual correction from the world, but I don't
> actually expect any until death ...
>
That’s a shame as postponing decisions till after you die is leaving
them too late.
Its interesting to hear you epistemic reasoning.
My issue is that you claim that no compelling evidence has been
presented to you to dissuade you from your Christian beliefs. I find
this astonishing given the obvious internal and external
contradictions of the bible and it is the bible which provides the
only source for the Christian belief. If the bible is shown to be
unreliable then the whole belief system it is based on should fall.
>
>
> > > I don't think the proposition knowable, but since I don't claim to
> > > know that isn't a problem.
>
> > But out of all the contradictory unknowable propositions in the world
> > you have chosen Christianity and labelled yourself an agnostic
> > Christian. Is there anything other than the fact you were raised a
> > Christian which makes you use this label?
>
> Well, that I believe in it. You can argue that it is only because I
> was raised in it that I believe it, but that goes beyond the label.
>
It does seem that you cling onto the label “Christian” for no other
reason than that is how you were raised.
Your position seems no different to the theist who challenges others
to “prove god does not exist” and until that day they will hold onto
their beliefs come what may.
>
>
>
>
> > If not then you are simply a cultural christian which I am also myself
> > yet only one of us seems to cling to the supernatural tenets of that
> > religion so there is clearly more to it than that.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Treebeard
<allan_c_cybulskie@yahoo.ca>I think you have a very odd idea of the phrase "working for me". It
would be more how it plays out in day-to-day life when the belief gets
attached to my actions, and so far that seems to be working fine..
> It seems that it has failed to the point where you defiantly cling
> onto the label even if you have to pre-fix it with the word “agnostic”
> in a tacit admission that it cannot be logically or empirically
> justified anymore.
Um, the positions are distinct:
1) I claim that at least a Judeo-Christian God is not knowable,
because one cannot prove that something in reality has the properties
omnipotence, omniscience, and all-morality because there is no
empirical observation one can have that demonstrates this. However,
one cannot prove that there is nothing that doesn't have those either,
and our knowledge is certainly currently far too low to prove any
contradiction amongst those and the world.
2) I believe that such a God exists.
So, no, I don't have to pre-fix my "label" with "agnostic", as the
positions are distinct. However, when someone says that an agnostic
-- who does not know -- cannot believe that God exists I point out
that that is false both in principle -- since you can believe without
knowing -- AND in actuality since I'm somone who believes in God but
does not know (and insists that he CAN'T know).
>
> If I begin to have serious doubts over free market capitalism
So, what kind of serious doubts? Just enough to take it below
knowledge, or enough that you are starting to believe it false?
The former doesn't justify your stance below, and the latter is not
what I have.
> I would
> not label myself an agnostic capitalist I would simply stop referring
> to myself as a capitalist at all. Unless of course I had some
> emotional attachment to it or didn’t want to admit I had wasted a
> large part of my life supporting something I no longer believed in.
>
>
>
> > > > I see no reason to abandon that belief since the
> > > > atheist arguments are essentially "You could be wrong".
>
> > > You actually have many different arguments against your belief in the
> > > Christian God. For a start you have the argument of every other
> > > religion for which there is the same amount of evidence which
> > > instantly renders your position less likely correct than incorrect.
> > > Even without atheism this should be enough to convince you that
> > > Christianity is more likely to be incorrect than correct and therefore
> > > the label non-Christian would seem more fitting than Christian.
>
> > I don't justify my beliefs based on probabilities and don't think
> > anyone should.
>
> I completely disagree with this. Unless you profess dogmatic
> certainty on subjects (something which neither of us seem to do) then
> belief manifestly is about probability rather than dictomatic
> certainty or lack thereof.
This is taking the comment the wrong way. Look above: you talked
about "more likely to be incorrect than correct". I'm insisting that
I don't form or maintain beliefs by appealing to that. This has
nothing to do with my insisting that I am absolutely certain, and from
the above discussions it should be clear that that isn't what I do.
So, in fact, I am EMBRACING the lack of certainty, not promoting it.
>
> >Probabilities change too frequently to be reliable
> > determinants of what one should believe, especially in cases >like the
> > one you cite where what we have is a vast number of roughly equally
> > "probable" beliefs. For example, if one belief had a 30% probability
> > of being true and we had 70 other stances that all had a 1%
> > probability of being true, is there any reason NOT to prefer the one
> > that has 30% probability even though it's not likely to be true by the
> > numbers?
>
> In a situation such as this the rational position to take would have
> to take these probabilities into account. You would not profess a
> strong belief in the 30% position but would claim it the most likely
> of all the possibilities on offer.
But it is still more likely to be false -- by the numbers -- than
true. This is one reason why I REJECT that sort of calculation for
belief.
And, again, I never said anything about holding "strong belief" in
God. For all of my beliefs, I take into account my confidence in them
when acting on them, which may be a fair bit short of absolute
confidence.
>
>
>
> > I don't claim that is the case for my religion, but I stop that at the
> > beginning by asking how it is that we can think that we have the right
> > probabilities if we don't know which is true. So I prefer to form
> > beliefs for any proposition that I find important and then act as if
> > they are true, in accordance with how confident I am of their truth.
> > And then I let the world correct me.
>
> > So far, there's been no actual correction from the world, but I don't
> > actually expect any until death ...
>
> That’s a shame as postponing decisions till after you die is leaving
> them too late.
If there are tests or evidence from the world that impact the belief,
then I will correct as they come up. If they aren't, then there's
nothing else I can do and it doesn't really matter what I believe.
Why? All that does is say "It might not be true". But the instant I
say "I believe but do not know X", I am already admitting that it
might not be true. Atheists have no stronger arguments -- generally
-- than "It might not be true". Only with a presumption of "You can't
believe unless you know" does that say anything interesting. And I
deny that, since I claim that there are many, many beliefs that I do
not know that I need in order to function in my daily life, and that
also applies not just to me, but to everyone. Attempts to get those
into "knowledge" by weakening the standards have always struck me as
risking God beliefs being knowledge by the weakened requirements for
justifications. But, at any rate, saying "You might be wrong" is
useless, since it is part and parcel of belief to accept that very
fact. So why would I ever be compelled to drop a belief simply
because it could be wrong?
>
>
>
> > > > I don't think the proposition knowable, but since I don't claim to
> > > > know that isn't a problem.
>
> > > But out of all the contradictory unknowable propositions in the world
> > > you have chosen Christianity and labelled yourself an agnostic
> > > Christian. Is there anything other than the fact you were raised a
> > > Christian which makes you use this label?
>
> > Well, that I believe in it. You can argue that it is only because I
> > was raised in it that I believe it, but that goes beyond the label.
>
> It does seem that you cling onto the label “Christian” for no other
> reason than that is how you were raised.
Your opinion, I suppose, but forgive me if I take my interpretation
over yours, at least for now [grin].
>
> Your position seems no different to the theist who challenges others
> to “prove god does not exist” and until that day they will hold onto
> their beliefs come what may.
The only ways to force someone to drop or change a belief are:
1) To prove that the belief is false, and so that they should know it
is false.
2) Prove that they have two beliefs that contradict.
If atheists have neither, I refuse to -- and rightly so -- change my
beliefs simply because they don't believe it or have epistemic
principles that I don't share that insist I should move to some "lack
of belief" state. Thus, if nothing changes I WILL maintain that
belief in the absence of proof that it's wrong. And so if atheists
want to insist that I shouldn't believe, it is a perfectly reasonable
response to say "Prove it false, or go away".
Answer_42
<ipu.believer@gmail.com><snipped in order to focus on a specific point>
> > > You are making claims based on a perceived way of doing things that I
> > > do not share and that I argue no one actually does. Has anyone ever
> > > calculated the "probability" or "certainty" of something being true as
> > > being more than 50% when they didn't already believe it? So why are
> > > you so certain that people aren't using a Web of Belief and choosing
> > > to keep the belief that fits best in with that as opposed to
> > > determining real likelihoods? I submit that any likelihood
> > > calculation can be summed up as "This is the one that best suits my
> > > existing beliefs". In fact, I can't see any other way for it to be
> > > done since one has to use what one believes to determine how likely
> > > something is to be true, since that's what models how they think the
> > > world to be.
>
> > Its interesting to hear you epistemic reasoning.
>
> > My issue is that you claim that no compelling evidence has been
> > presented to you to dissuade you from your Christian beliefs. I find
> > this astonishing given the obvious internal and external
> > contradictions of the bible and it is the bible which provides the
> > only source for the Christian belief. If the bible is shown to be
> > unreliable then the whole belief system it is based on should fall.
>
> Why? All that does is say "It might not be true".
Actually, many, many parts of the bible can be labelled as "It is
absolutely false."
So we have more than merely "It might not be true."
> But the instant I
> say "I believe but do not know X", I am already admitting that it
> might not be true. Atheists have no stronger arguments -- generally
> -- than "It might not be true". Only with a presumption of "You can't
> believe unless you know" does that say anything interesting. And I
> deny that, since I claim that there are many, many beliefs that I do
> not know that I need in order to function in my daily life,
Right, and how many of YOUR other beliefs are supported by a 100%
imaginary untestable unverifiable concept?
None, that is how many.
Many times I have tried to get you to admit that your god belief is
special and cannot bet treated as any other belief in your web simply
because it does not rest on anything factual as all your other beliefs
do.
Also, one should consider the origin of the belief, but you flatly
refuse to do that claiming it is irrelevant, if I remember correctly.
In short, you are wiling to take any shortcut in order to pretend to
yourself that your god belief is just as rational as all your other
beliefs, when plainly, it is not.
So, while there exist dozen of perfectly logical and rational
explanations that demonstrate how religious beliefs most likely came
to be created by mankind, and none to demonstrate how religious
beliefs are directly obtained from a god, you continue to claim that
the world cannot do anything to make you stop believing in your
superstitious beliefs, basically simply because mommy told you so. And
all along you claim you are perfectly rational... go figure!
___________________________________________
It may be that ministers really think that their prayers do good and
it may be that frogs imagine that their croaking brings spring.
-- Robert Ingersoll