defintion of atheism?
tom edwards
i wonder if anyone could help me with a definition of atheism
--
Mark Gradwell
tom edwards wrote:
>
> i wonder if anyone could help me with a definition of atheism
> --
A "working" definition rather popular around these parts is: A lack of
belief in deities(god/s).
--
Yours,
Mark Gradwell
http://www.marks.diving.photos.mcmail.com
mailto:mark...@cwcom.net
aa#1478
tom edwards
>
>
> A "working" definition rather popular around these parts is: A lack of
> belief in deities(god/s).
>
you see i don't think it is really possible to be an atheist.. only an
agnostic... you see lacking the belief that god exists is rather like
saying god does not exist.. but how can you know?
so therefore i don't spose its really possible to say that atheism is a
lack of belief in god.. because that statement is somewhat fallacious
Don Kresch
<"tomwilliam76"@no SPAM\"hotmail.com\"> told us all that
>
>
>>
>>
>> A "working" definition rather popular around these parts is: A lack of
>> belief in deities(god/s).
>>
>
>you see i don't think it is really possible to be an atheist.. only an
>agnostic... you see lacking the belief that god exists is rather like
>saying god does not exist.. but how can you know?
Is lacking hair (baldness) like having hair? Is lacking a sock like having
a sock?
I think you need to actually learn what "lack" means.
>
>so therefore i don't spose its really possible to say that atheism is a
>lack of belief in god.. because that statement is somewhat fallacious
Except that you simply don't know what you're talking about.
Don
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, EAC Decryption squad
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
walks...@earthlink.net
>> A "working" definition rather popular around these parts is: A lack of
>> belief in deities(god/s).
About as good a def as any.
>you see i don't think it is really possible to be an atheist.. only an
Don't denigrate yourself so. You do think. Maybe not very well, but
you do think.
>agnostic... you see lacking the belief that god exists is rather like
>saying god does not exist.. but how can you know?
You see, it isn't really. It simply means that some have examined the
claims of the theists & find no sane reason to believe them valid. I
count myself in that lucky group.
>so therefore i don't spose its really possible to say that atheism is a
>lack of belief in god.. because that statement is somewhat fallacious
Do you often play mind games with yourself, or was the above dishonesty
truly an accident. It may well behoove you to actually talk with a few
atheists before you make conclusions that are false. It doesn't harm
the atheists, but it makes you appear one who, shall we say, dislikes
to find facts & consider them. BTW, the claim that faith is not subject
to proofs, while a nice & warm/fuzzy/happy meal thing, is in error.
Once you claim anything exists, you've it to prove. If you make an
extrodinary claim, such as there is a god & it's name [pick the one you
like], then you've a real chore on your hand.
If you wish to prove no atheism, then prove a "god of god¸ " exists.
Simple, no?
>> Yours,
>> Mark Gradwell
>> http://www.marks.diving.photos.mcmail.com
>> mailto:mark...@cwcom.net
>> aa#1478
Be careful Tom, your thinking isn't as sharp as it should be on this
subject.
The Bible is one of the most genocidal books in history
[Noam Chomsky]
walksalone
tom edwards
Don Kresch wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 14:08:26 +0000, in alt.atheism, tom edwards
> <"tomwilliam76"@no SPAM\"hotmail.com\"> told us all that
>
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> A "working" definition rather popular around these parts is: A lack of
> >> belief in deities(god/s).
> >>
> >
> >you see i don't think it is really possible to be an atheist.. only an
> >agnostic... you see lacking the belief that god exists is rather like
> >saying god does not exist.. but how can you know?
>
> Is lacking hair (baldness) like having hair?
that sounds more than a bit familiar .. are you sure they're your words
> Is lacking a sock like having
> a sock?
>
> I think you need to actually learn what "lack" means.
i think i understand what lack means.. lets see in my example i said that lack of
belief was like having no belief.. in your example you said lacking bald ness was not
the same as having hair .. this is quite correct.. however if we apply the analogy
back to what i said :
lack of hair (or lack of belief in god) is not the same as having hair (or believing
in god)
no problems here.. but we still haven't got any further on the question of whether
lack of belief in god is the same as not believing in god. perhaps you can help
>
>
> >
> >so therefore i don't spose its really possible to say that atheism is a
> >lack of belief in god.. because that statement is somewhat fallacious
>
> Except that you simply don't know what you're talking about
>
>
>
>
> Don
>
DJ Nozem
SPAM\"hotmail.com\"> wrote:
>> A "working" definition rather popular around these parts is: A lack of
>> belief in deities(god/s).
>you see i don't think it is really possible to be an atheist.. only an
>agnostic... you see lacking the belief that god exists is rather like
>saying god does not exist.. but how can you know?
Not believing that something does exists is not the same as believing
that it does not exist. Believing that it doesn't exist is not the
same as claiming that it doesn't.
>so therefore i don't spose its really possible to say that atheism is a
>lack of belief in god.. because that statement is somewhat fallacious
Your logic works in mysterious ways, Tom William.
Existence is futile - Everything is going to be -
Nothing was meant to be - We give meaning to eachother
DJ Nozem #1465 zwag...@multiweb.nl
Charles Fiterman
tom edwards wrote:
> i wonder if anyone could help me with a definition of atheism
Atheism comes from atheist which comes from the Greek a (without)
theoi (gods). The line one definition in most American
dictionaries is "godless".
Common usage seems to be a figure ground notion. Subtract the
Christians and subtract the Moslems .... subtract the emperor
worshipers ... subtract the Animists .... What you have left are
atheists. This figure ground notion is modified by saying things
like a Catholic who goes into a coma and ceases to believe
anything is not an atheist. An atheist who performs a religious
ceremony under duress remains an atheist because we have no
tradition of sacred martyrdom.
Surprisingly all this can be put into a traditional definition.
Not surprisingly few atheists like the definition though it does
a good job of including and excluding the right people and other
definitions break down if you test them. Many include nobody
others include emperor worshipers etc.
An atheist is a person who from principal or belief does not
willingly serve or worship any gods or spirits.
Think of a definition as a little program and test it. Then test
the others. See which comes closest to fitting common usage
notions of who is or is not an atheist.
brian_...@my-deja.com
"tomwilliam76@NoSPAM" <hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> i wonder if anyone could help me with a definition of atheism
Wow, can open. Worms everywhere.
There are two predominant lines of thought.
1) Disbelief
2) Nonbelief
Disbelief: I don't believe (a) god(s) / (god x) exist(s).
Nonbelief: I believe that god(s) / god x do(es) not exist.
These are sometimes broken into "strong" and "weak" atheism, although
that in and of itself is often a line of debate.
Enjoy the mess of responses sure to follow your question.
Tirdun
KoX EAC
tirdun at yahoo dot com
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
tom edwards
walks...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
>
> >> A "working" definition rather popular around these parts is: A lack of
> >> belief in deities(god/s).
>
> About as good a def as any.
>
> >you see i don't think it is really possible to be an atheist..
you were calling into question my capabilities as a thinker here.. hmmm..
perhaps that was a little premature of you
> only an
> >agnostic... you see lacking the belief that god exists is rather like
> >saying god does not exist.. but how can you know?
>
> You see, it isn't really. It simply means that some have examined the
> claims of the theists & find no sane reason to believe them valid. I
> count myself in that lucky group.
any claims of those believing in god or gods are totally and utterly
irrelevant to the question
>
>
> >so therefore i don't spose its really possible to say that atheism is a
> >lack of belief in god.. because that statement is somewhat fallacious
>
> Do you often play mind games with yourself, or was the above dishonesty
> truly an accident. It may well behoove you to actually talk with a few
> atheists before you make conclusions that are false. It doesn't harm
> the atheists, but it makes you appear one who, shall we say, dislikes
> to find facts & consider them. BTW, the claim that faith is not subject
> to proofs, while a nice & warm/fuzzy/happy meal thing, is in error.
> Once you claim anything exists, you've it to prove. If you make an
> extrodinary claim, such as there is a god & it's name [pick the one you
> like], then you've a real chore on your hand.
this is not a mind game... i am just exploring an argument. OK so to take it
from the top.. atheism is a lack of belief in god.. perhaps you can tell me
if this is the same as making the more categorical statement "GOD DOES NOT
EXIST". It is this which i believe to be fallacious, because there is no way
of proving that to be the case. If that were so then a "lack of belief in
gods" or "atheism" is not the rational approach which it is much vaunted as
and instead is tantamount to a superstition..
> If you wish to prove no atheism, then prove a "god of god¸ " exists.
> Simple, no?
the question of offering proof that god exists is again utterly irrelevant.
if you want to take the position of not believing in god then you must
justify it by proving that god does not exist.. if you really want to believe
that god does not exist, it is not really enough to say i'm going to not
believe in god until someone else can show me otherwise, but instead must
convince yourself that god does not exist.. after all the believers (who you
seem to think are sooo stupid) aren't standing around saying "we're going to
believe in god until you show us otherwise"
>
>
> >> Yours,
> >> Mark Gradwell
> >> http://www.marks.diving.photos.mcmail.com
> >> mailto:mark...@cwcom.net
> >> aa#1478
>
> Be careful Tom, your thinking isn't as sharp as it should be on this
> subject.
i try to keep this type of discussion as impersonal and as friendly as
possible as that usually results in a more constructive debate.. if you have
such a low opinion of my intelligence then what is the point of involving
yourself in a debate with me?
>
>
> The Bible is one of the most genocidal books in history
> [Noam Chomsky]
>
> walksalone
--
he's a blockhead who wants proof of what he can't perceive
he's a fool who tries to make such a blockhead believe
William Blake
Bene disserere est finis logicis
Christopher Marlowe
tom edwards
DJ Nozem wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 14:08:26 +0000, tom edwards <"tomwilliam76"@no
> SPAM\"hotmail.com\"> wrote:
>
> >> A "working" definition rather popular around these parts is: A lack of
> >> belief in deities(god/s).
>
> >you see i don't think it is really possible to be an atheist.. only an
> >agnostic... you see lacking the belief that god exists is rather like
> >saying god does not exist.. but how can you know?
>
> Not believing that something does exists is not the same as believing
> that it does not exist.
I do NOT BELIEVE that god exists : I BELIEVE that god does NOT exist
where is the difference between this pair of statements... both seem to
strongly negate the existence of god... perhaps you could provide an
alternative pair to better illustrate the differences.
> Believing that it doesn't exist is not the
> same as claiming that it doesn't.
but both "belief" and "claim" are unsubstantiated... it would be far better
to "know" which implies less uncertainty... however unless you are an
omnipotent being (which might make some people call you a god) it is not
possible for you to "KNOW" that god does not exist. Therefore athiesm is
reduced to a rather superstitious belief system based on a fallacious
presumption that gods do not exist.
>
>
> >so therefore i don't spose its really possible to say that atheism is a
> >lack of belief in god.. because that statement is somewhat fallacious
>
> Your logic works in mysterious ways, Tom William.
does it indeed... if i make the statement "GOD EXISTS" why does the floor
erupt with cries of "that is an existential statement, and therefore has no
meaning in logic"... if I make the statement "GOD DOES NOT EXIST" perhaps you
can explain to me why this is any less of an existential question, and as
such equally logically fallacious
>
>
> Existence is futile - Everything is going to be -
> Nothing was meant to be - We give meaning to eachother
> DJ Nozem #1465 zwag...@multiweb.nl
--
tom edwards
Charles Fiterman wrote:
> tom edwards wrote:
>
> > i wonder if anyone could help me with a definition of atheism
>
> Atheism comes from atheist which comes from the Greek a (without)
> theoi (gods). The line one definition in most American
> dictionaries is "godless".
>
> Common usage seems to be a figure ground notion. Subtract the
> Christians and subtract the Moslems .... subtract the emperor
> worshipers ... subtract the Animists .... What you have left are
> atheists. This figure ground notion is modified by saying things
> like a Catholic who goes into a coma and ceases to believe
> anything is not an atheist. An atheist who performs a religious
> ceremony under duress remains an atheist because we have no
> tradition of sacred martyrdom.
>
> Surprisingly all this can be put into a traditional definition.
> Not surprisingly few atheists like the definition though it does
> a good job of including and excluding the right people and other
> definitions break down if you test them. Many include nobody
> others include emperor worshipers etc.
>
> An atheist is a person who from principal or belief does not
> willingly serve or worship any gods or spirits.
this definition does not seem to preclude the existence of god(s), only
to preclude their service or worship. I would ask you then what
separates an athiest under this definition from an agnostic?
YodelFish
tom edwards <"tomwilliam76"@no SPAM\"hotmail.com\"> wrote in message
news:85fdgr$nmb$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk...
>
>
> >
> >
> > A "working" definition rather popular around these parts is: A lack of
> > belief in deities(god/s).
> >
>
> you see i don't think it is really possible to be an atheist.. only an
> agnostic... you see lacking the belief that god exists is rather like
> saying god does not exist.. but how can you know?
>
I know.
> so therefore i don't spose its really possible to say that atheism is a
> lack of belief in god.. because that statement is somewhat fallacious
Yeah there is no god(s).
Therefore I am an Atheist.
--
Yodel
______
# 1645
dotcom
<"tomwilliam76"@no SPAM\"hotmail.com\"> wrote:
> >
> >
> > A "working" definition rather popular around these parts is: A
> lack of
> > belief in deities(god/s).
> >
> you see i don't think it is really possible to be an atheist..
Wrong already, baby troll. I'm an atheist, thus your "thesis" is
faulty. Please try again later, much later.
> only an
> agnostic... you see lacking the belief that god exists is rather
> like
> saying god does not exist.. but how can you know?
No, I see that lacking belief in god is rather like lacking belief in
god.
> so therefore i don't spose its really possible to say that atheism
> is a
> lack of belief in god.. because that statement is somewhat
> fallacious
Since you already had your defintion lined up, why did you bother
asking in the first place? Did you feel some need to lead up to your
"there are no atheists" spiel? Why don't you have the courage to at
least come straight out and say "there are no atheists" like Young and
Electro? We'd laugh at you and make fun of your ignorance, but at least
you'd be honest and forthright.
dotcom, off...
yes, I am an atheist, and no, I don't want to hear about jeeezus
E-mail about my newsgroup posts may be posted to that newsgroup
There is no god worth our worship. - Martin Schlottmann
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Scott Davidson
In article 1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk, tom edwards <"tomwilliam76"@no SPAM\"hotmail.com\"> writes:
>
>
>walks...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> >> A "working" definition rather popular around these parts is: A lack of
>> >> belief in deities(god/s).
>>
>> About as good a def as any.
>>
>> >you see i don't think it is really possible to be an atheist..
>
>you were calling into question my capabilities as a thinker here.. hmmm..
>perhaps that was a little premature of you
>
>> only an
>> >agnostic... you see lacking the belief that god exists is rather like
>> >saying god does not exist.. but how can you know?
>>
>> You see, it isn't really. It simply means that some have examined the
>> claims of the theists & find no sane reason to believe them valid. I
>> count myself in that lucky group.
>
>any claims of those believing in god or gods are totally and utterly
>irrelevant to the question
>
>>
>>
>> >so therefore i don't spose its really possible to say that atheism is a
>> >lack of belief in god.. because that statement is somewhat fallacious
>>
Do you believe in the existence of fuzzy pink aliens on a planet around
Sirius B? If not, can you prove that they don't exist? Isn't it more
rational to withhold belief in something until someone shows you evidence
of it?
Further, do you believe in Vishnu? If not, prove he does not exist.
By your logic, you should believe in and worship literally millions
of gods.
Scott #1045
Christopher A. Lee
>
>> A "working" definition rather popular around these parts is: A lack of
>> belief in deities(god/s).
>
>agnostic... you see lacking the belief that god exists is rather like
>saying god does not exist.. but how can you know?
It's only that to the deliberately ignorant.
Analyse the word: "a-" means without the prefixed property.
So we're without theism (which is the belief in deity).
We're not theists. Does that mean we have to be scotch mist?
>so therefore i don't spose its really possible to say that atheism is a
>lack of belief in god.. because that statement is somewhat fallacious
You spose wrong. But don't worry - we're used to people telling
us what our position "really" is and not surprisingly getting it
wrong because they're not mind-readers. For some reason they get
upset when we don't show them the courtesy they expect but refuse
others.
Try not to be the latest in an long and undistinguished line.
Dr. Necrophage
> >
> >
> > A "working" definition rather popular around these parts is: A
> lack of belief in deities(god/s).
> >
> you see i don't think it is really possible to be an atheist..
> only an agnostic... you see lacking the belief that god exists is >
rather like saying god does not exist.. but how can you know?
> is a lack of belief in god.. because that statement is somewhat
> fallacious
Lets look at this operationally for a second.
Person 'X' approaches person 'Y' and says: "A god has made everything."
Person 'Y': "Really? What is a 'god?'"
This usually results in a serious amount of consternation on the part
of 'x' who usually either cannot provide a definition at all or gives
the usual omni- -potent, -scient, -benevolent...etc. answer so we
proceed from here assuming the usual 'Omni-god' definition.
'X': "Omni-god description"
'Y': "That sounds pretty impressive, what empirical evidence do you
have that such a thing actually exists?"
This too causes a great deal of consternation and depending upon the
flavor of theist will elicit a series of responses from inarticulate
grunts, to incredulity, to threats, to seemingly calm and 'reasoned'
arguments that rely on a vast variety of fallicies and illogical
premises, but more often then not the ultimate answer is:
'X': "No, there is no physical empirical 'evidence,' you have to
believe on faith."
'Y': "No thanks. Why should I trust *your* word (add to that any book
that 'X' may have mentioned up to this point since all they are is
printed collections of *other people's* unsubstantiated assertions)
without any empirical *evidence* at all that any thingy as a 'god'
exists? Untill you provide some pretty extraordinary evidence to
support the proposition that such a thing exists why should I 'believe'
in it?
I happen to think Y's position could easily fit under the 'Atheist'
lable as has been defined for you previously. Notice that this has
*nothing* whatever to do with the actual ontological status of a 'god'
thingy. Unless unequivial empirical evidence that can be examined
under laboratory conditions is provided to *support* the proposition
that 'god' thingies actually in fact exist, there is no reason to
believe that they do. It simply does not matter if the supposed 'god'
thingy 'really' exists or not, without *evidence* that it exists it is
an irrelevancy.
Untill the 'Grey' aliens land on the Whitehouse lawn and abduct Clinton
in front of a panel of scientists, there is no obligation to 'believe'
that these entities actually exist.
The same goes for 'god' thingies.
**(Note: The above is of course a bit of an over simplifaction of the
typical theist encounters I have had personally and is not meant as a
'strawman' exercise. There is simply not enought time in my day nor
interest in me to rehash all possible theist permutations and
arguments. For purposes of the specific point of the problem of a
proper definition for 'atheist' I have condensed matters a bit to get
to make my point. For a very good resource that deals with almost all
of the 'god' arguments and their solutions go to
http://www.infidels.org )
Dr. Necrophage
Cthulhu! The only clear choice to put an end to the Millennium.
- Brought to you by the Elder Party Cthulhu for President Campaign.
Graham Wanless
news:85fdgr$nmb$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk...
> > A "working" definition rather popular around these parts is: A lack of
> > belief in deities(god/s).
>
> you see i don't think it is really possible to be an atheist.. only an
> agnostic... you see lacking the belief that god exists is rather like
> saying god does not exist.. but how can you know?
>
> so therefore i don't spose its really possible to say that atheism is a
> lack of belief in god.. because that statement is somewhat fallacious
YOU DON'T HAVE TO KNOW THAT SOMETHING DOESN'T EXIST IN ORDER TO NOT BELIEVE
IN IT.
let's look at another word: aelfism
a- means without, -elf- refers to elves, little mythical creatures, and -ism
means belief.
The word means "without belief in elves" or "lacking belief in elves."
I am an aelfist; I've never seen an elf and my research shows that they're
probably a myth. I can never be sure that elves don't exist, but I can say
that I don't believe in them; I don't believe elves exist because I have no
reason to do so.
That is not fallacious. If you are an elfist, one who believes in elves,
you have to show me that they exist. The burden of proof lies on the one
who makes the positive claim. Is not believing in elves an illogical
position? No.
--
Graham Wanless
graham...@home.com.god <-- get rid of god to email me
http://members.home.net/grahamwanless
===========================
"If the Bible and my brain are both the work of the same Infinite God,
whose fault is it that the book and my brain do not agree?"
--Robert G. Ingersoll
===========================
><Darwin>
L L
Graham Wanless
> this definition does not seem to preclude the existence of god(s), only
> to preclude their service or worship. I would ask you then what
> separates an athiest under this definition from an agnostic?
Yes, it's not the real definition. It's the definition of the word as it
is, in that person's opinion, commonly used. Most people here will agree
that the word's meaning is that of not having (lacking) belief in god/s.
That's what it means; a-(without)-the-(gods)-ism(belief). An agnostic is
technically an atheist as well, since agnostics do not believe in god/s.
They believe that they do not know if there is a god or that it _cannot_ be
known if there is a god. Agnostism is a type of atheism, also referred to
as "weak" atheism. "Strong" atheism is a belief that god/s do not exist.
Atheism
/ \
Agnostism Strong atheism
(I hope this nifty diagram helps you out)
Graham Wanless
news:85fvhh$h2d$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <85f925$n21$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>,
> "tomwilliam76@NoSPAM" <hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > i wonder if anyone could help me with a definition of atheism
> 1) Disbelief
> 2) Nonbelief
>
> Disbelief: I don't believe (a) god(s) / (god x) exist(s).
> Nonbelief: I believe that god(s) / god x do(es) not exist.
Isn't it the other way around?
> These are sometimes broken into "strong" and "weak" atheism, although
> that in and of itself is often a line of debate.
<snip>
John Popelish
> I do NOT BELIEVE that god exists : I BELIEVE that god does NOT exist
>
> where is the difference between this pair of statements... both seem to
> strongly negate the existence of god... perhaps you could provide an
> alternative pair to better illustrate the differences.
I think you get into trouble, here when you argue using the word
"believe", which means different things in different contexts. Here
is a formulation that may make more sense:
"I have little or no confidence that any god/s exist outside of the
imaginations of believers."
vs.
"I have great or complete confidence that no god/s exist outside of
the imaginations of believers."
Do you see that one expresses a lack of "belief" (absence of
confidence) while the other draws a strong conclusion. How confident
are you willing to be that something that you cannot measure in any
way, exists outside of your imagination? You have to make this kind
of judgment about hypothetical things quite often.
> > Believing that it doesn't exist is not the
> > same as claiming that it doesn't.
>
> but both "belief" and "claim" are unsubstantiated... it would be far better
> to "know" which implies less uncertainty... however unless you are an
> omnipotent being (which might make some people call you a god) it is not
> possible for you to "KNOW" that god does not exist. Therefore athiesm is
> reduced to a rather superstitious belief system based on a fallacious
> presumption that gods do not exist.
>
> >
> >
> > >so therefore i don't spose its really possible to say that atheism is a
> > >lack of belief in god.. because that statement is somewhat fallacious
> >
> > Your logic works in mysterious ways, Tom William.
>
> does it indeed... if i make the statement "GOD EXISTS" why does the floor
> erupt with cries of "that is an existential statement, and therefore has no
> meaning in logic"... if I make the statement "GOD DOES NOT EXIST" perhaps you
> can explain to me why this is any less of an existential question, and as
> such equally logically fallacious
Can you state that, "Though I have little or no confidence that god/s
exist outside of the imaginations of believers because of a total lack
of evidence, I firmly believe that god/s exists." This would be the
theist equivalent to the first atheist opinion I stated above. But
while a lack of confidence can justify withholding belief, I don't see
how the same lack of confidence (based on the same total lack of
evidence) can justify belief in God's existence. The description of
the character trait that allows one to be convinced that something
exists though one has no information to support that belief is
gullibility or suggestibility. I have had enough experience with
hypnotism to know that this trait is very strong in some people.
--
John Popelish
Mark Richardson
SPAM\"hotmail.com\"> wrote:
>
>i wonder if anyone could help me with a definition of atheism
Yes.
An atheist is someone who does not believe in a god.
It is from the greek a - theos literally without god.
Now the really difficult question is what is a "god".
Think about that one, and your head will spin.
Mark.
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Richardson
m.rich...@utas.edu.au
____________________________________________________________
John Popelish
>
> Charles Fiterman wrote:
>
> >
> > > i wonder if anyone could help me with a definition of atheism
> >
> > theoi (gods). The line one definition in most American
> > dictionaries is "godless".
> >
> > Common usage seems to be a figure ground notion. Subtract the
> > Christians and subtract the Moslems .... subtract the emperor
> > worshipers ... subtract the Animists .... What you have left are
> > atheists. This figure ground notion is modified by saying things
> > like a Catholic who goes into a coma and ceases to believe
> > anything is not an atheist. An atheist who performs a religious
> > ceremony under duress remains an atheist because we have no
> > tradition of sacred martyrdom.
> >
> > Surprisingly all this can be put into a traditional definition.
> > Not surprisingly few atheists like the definition though it does
> > a good job of including and excluding the right people and other
> > definitions break down if you test them. Many include nobody
> > others include emperor worshipers etc.
> >
> > An atheist is a person who from principal or belief does not
> > willingly serve or worship any gods or spirits.
>
> to preclude their service or worship. I would ask you then what
> separates an athiest under this definition from an agnostic?
Not a thing.
I not only don't know whether one to an infinity of gods exist, I
don't care. Until one or more of them become measurable in some way,
I have decided that the whole subject is not my problem.
In the mean time, I go about my business without assuming that any
god/s exist, and that makes me atheist.
--
John Popelish
Cabrutus
tom edwards wrote:
> i wonder if anyone could help me with a definition of atheism
> --
Atheism is the lack of theism.
--
Cabrutus
locratz @ geocities . com | Ubi dubium ibi libertas.
24.6.208.162/cabrutus/ | DALnet: #atheology
John Hattan
><brian_...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>news:85fvhh$h2d$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>>
>> Disbelief: I don't believe (a) god(s) / (god x) exist(s).
>> Nonbelief: I believe that god(s) / god x do(es) not exist.
>
>Isn't it the other way around?
Always preferred "implicit" and "explicit" myself. It's really tough to
get 'em mixed up.
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
john-...@home.com http://www.freespeech.org/shatner
raven1
SPAM\"hotmail.com\"> wrote:
>
>
>DJ Nozem wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 14:08:26 +0000, tom edwards <"tomwilliam76"@no
>> SPAM\"hotmail.com\"> wrote:
>>
>> >> A "working" definition rather popular around these parts is: A lack of
>> >> belief in deities(god/s).
>>
>> >you see i don't think it is really possible to be an atheist.. only an
>> >agnostic... you see lacking the belief that god exists is rather like
>> >saying god does not exist.. but how can you know?
>>
>> Not believing that something does exists is not the same as believing
>> that it does not exist.
>
>I do NOT BELIEVE that god exists : I BELIEVE that god does NOT exist
>
>where is the difference between this pair of statements...
Think of it in other terms: I DO NOT BELIEVE is a statement that one
does not accept a proposition as true, while not saying that it is
necessarily false. I BELIEVE THAT...NOT is an outright negation.
For example, "I do not believe that extraterrestrials are visiting
this planet" (my opinion on the matter, BTW) is a statement that based
on the available evidence, there is no reason to accept the claim as
valid. It is not a categorical denial, as "I believe that
extraterrestrials are not visiting this planet" would be. Or, for
example, the celebrated "Loch Ness Monster", "Bigfoot", etc... .
Saying "I do not believe" does not deny the possibility, however
remote, that one or more of these things may exist, it just states
that the person espousing the view does not give credence to such an
idea; saying "I believe that ... not" denies the possibility that such
things exist.
Does that clear things up?
>both seem to
>strongly negate the existence of god... perhaps you could provide an
>alternative pair to better illustrate the differences.
See above.
"When a man lies, he murders some part of the world."
- Merlin, "Excalibur"
raven1
SPAM\"hotmail.com\"> wrote:
>
>
>Charles Fiterman wrote:
>
>> tom edwards wrote:
>>
>> > i wonder if anyone could help me with a definition of atheism
>>
>> Atheism comes from atheist which comes from the Greek a (without)
>> theoi (gods). The line one definition in most American
>> dictionaries is "godless".
>>
>> Common usage seems to be a figure ground notion. Subtract the
>> Christians and subtract the Moslems .... subtract the emperor
>> worshipers ... subtract the Animists .... What you have left are
>> atheists. This figure ground notion is modified by saying things
>> like a Catholic who goes into a coma and ceases to believe
>> anything is not an atheist. An atheist who performs a religious
>> ceremony under duress remains an atheist because we have no
>> tradition of sacred martyrdom.
>>
>> Surprisingly all this can be put into a traditional definition.
>> Not surprisingly few atheists like the definition though it does
>> a good job of including and excluding the right people and other
>> definitions break down if you test them. Many include nobody
>> others include emperor worshipers etc.
>>
>> An atheist is a person who from principal or belief does not
>> willingly serve or worship any gods or spirits.
>
>this definition does not seem to preclude the existence of god(s), only
>to preclude their service or worship. I would ask you then what
>separates an athiest under this definition from an agnostic?
>
Around these parts, anyway, "atheist" means "without a belief in
god/s" (whether one 1) lacks belief in, or 2) denies the possibility
of), while "agnostic" refers to the proposition that whether or not
god/s exist is unknowable. Many agnostics overlap with atheism under
these definitions.
Michael Alexander
unknown god exist? It isn't important, because you can't obey and unknown
god. An atheist makes a conscious decision not to obey, follow, or worship
any god.
Ed. Stoebenau
SPAM\"hotmail.com\"> wrote:
>
>
>DJ Nozem wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 14:08:26 +0000, tom edwards <"tomwilliam76"@no
>> SPAM\"hotmail.com\"> wrote:
>>
>> >> A "working" definition rather popular around these parts is: A lack of
>> >> belief in deities(god/s).
>>
>> >you see i don't think it is really possible to be an atheist.. only an
>> >agnostic... you see lacking the belief that god exists is rather like
>> >saying god does not exist.. but how can you know?
>>
>> Not believing that something does exists is not the same as believing
>> that it does not exist.
>
>I do NOT BELIEVE that god exists : I BELIEVE that god does NOT exist
>
>where is the difference between this pair of statements... both seem to
>strongly negate the existence of god... perhaps you could provide an
>alternative pair to better illustrate the differences.
I do not believe that 23445 * 7656 = 2354233420
I believe that 23445 * 7656 =/= 2354233420
I think the difference should now be obvious.
But consider further what is entailed by the equivalence of "S does
not believe that p" and "S believes that ~p." If these were
equivalent, everyone would have an infinite number of beliefs.
Consider just the propositions of the form "x+y=z." There are a lot
(an infinite number due to there being an infinite number of real
numbers, actually (an uncountable infinity, in fact)) of propositions
of this form you have never even thought of, and thus do not believe.
But with the proposed equivalence, this means you believe an infinite
number of inequalities. But this is obviously false; you do not have
an infinite number of beliefs. So the equivalence must be false.
Secondly, there are claims which we neither accept, not reject (where
reject = "accept the negation of" and is not to be construed as "do
not accept"). We certainly do not have definite opinions on many
claims. But the proposed equivalence suggests we in fact do. So
again, the equivalence is false.
>> Believing that it doesn't exist is not the
>> same as claiming that it doesn't.
<piggybacking for a sec>
It seems that for all practical purposes the two are equivalent, or
can be considered so. The only difference is that under one
definition of claim, a claim is a public event, a public admittance of
belief.
>but both "belief" and "claim" are unsubstantiated...
Not necessarily. beliefs can be justified. And knowledge is a type
of belief (the justified and true type.)
>it would be far better
>to "know" which implies less uncertainty...
Indeed it would. And some (most? all???) _strong_ atheists would
claim to know that God does not exist.
>however unless you are an
>omnipotent being (which might make some people call you a god) it is not
>possible for you to "KNOW" that god does not exist.
And you base this claim how? I certainly see no problem in
nonexistence claims being able to be justified. There certainly isn't
an elephant in my room, nor a black hole, and so forth. There also
isn't a supernatural omnipotent being who prevents the existence of
me, there aren't any square circles, nor any green platonic two's.
All of these non-existence claims, and others, can be justified, and
are true, and thus, since I believe all of them, I know them. I do
not see why the case of God would be any different in being impossible
to justify belief that he does exist.
>Therefore athiesm is
>reduced to a rather superstitious belief system based on a fallacious
>presumption that gods do not exist.
Even if what this claim was based on was true, you still have a rather
large non-sequitor.
>>
>>
>> >so therefore i don't spose its really possible to say that atheism is a
>> >lack of belief in god.. because that statement is somewhat fallacious
>>
>> Your logic works in mysterious ways, Tom William.
>
>does it indeed... if i make the statement "GOD EXISTS" why does the floor
>erupt with cries of "that is an existential statement, and therefore has no
>meaning in logic"...
Huh? I haven't seen that said here.
>if I make the statement "GOD DOES NOT EXIST" perhaps you
>can explain to me why this is any less of an existential question, and as
>such equally logically fallacious
--
Ed. Stoebenau
a#143
Michael Alexander
agnostic who doesn't go to church would usually be an atheist. An Atheist
has made a decision to not follow any religion.
Graham Wanless <graham...@home.com.god> wrote in message
news:rmOe4.28171$g12.8...@news2.rdc1.on.home.com...
Christopher A. Lee
Graham Wanless <graham...@home.com.god> wrote:
>that the word's meaning is that of not having (lacking) belief in god/s.
>technically an atheist as well, since agnostics do not believe in god/s.
>They believe that they do not know if there is a god or that it _cannot_ be
>known if there is a god. Agnostism is a type of atheism, also referred to
>as "weak" atheism. "Strong" atheism is a belief that god/s do not exist.
Agnosticism is NOT weak atheism. The two are orthogonal - look at
the roots: one is about the absence of an -ism and the other the
absence of knowledge.
This particular weak atheist is most definitely NOT agnostic
because he doesn't have anything to beagnostic about.
Dr Sinister
<85ft7t$pt6$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>:
>Charles Fiterman wrote:
(snip)
>> An atheist is a person who from principal or belief does not
>> willingly serve or worship any gods or spirits.
>
>this definition does not seem to preclude the existence of god(s), only
>to preclude their service or worship. I would ask you then what
>separates an athiest under this definition from an agnostic?
Fiterman's definition of atheism, which I have seen him use before, is a
great improvement over the usual incoherent bullshit. It still suffers
from the problem that 'god' and 'spirits' can mean just about anything,
but at least it does not immediately reduce to incoherence in the manner
that 'atheism is lack of theism' does.
locratz@spam_ist_sehr_lahm.geocities.com (Cabrutus) wrote in
<387BB752.96378403@spam_ist_sehr_lahm.geocities.com>:
"Atheism is the lack of theism."
'Atheism is lack of theism' means that you lack any belief that makes a
theist a theist. For example:
http://x46.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=556065314
http://x46.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=555579187
Ususally this belief is of the form 'I believe that god(s) exists'.
Someone who believes that 'god(s) exists' would be, obviously, a theist.
The problem with this, is that if the god in question is actually
something that _exists_, like my Toaster, then an atheist would have to
lack belief in its existence. Usually, the atheist tries to get around
this by saying: "no, I believe your _toaster_ exists, but I do not
believe it is a god". This is an immediate denial that I am a theist. My
Toaster is a god because I hold it in supreme regard. I am a theist
because I believe in its existence. Examples:
Dave Blair <dave...@bigfoot.com> wrote in
<81ba7...@enews4.newsguy.com>:
"I don't define God. God (or belief, for that matter) is, as far as I can
see, defined by whoever believes..."
Since an atheist will also tell you that it's impossible to be both a
theist and not a theist at the same time, a complete self-contradiction
arises. If an atheist tries to avoid this by categorically disallowing
gods which _actually exist_ from the discussion, then he has made the
presupposition that gods do not exist a priori. So in this case, your
claim that 'lack of belief in the existence of gods' implies 'gods are
nonexistent a priori' suddenly becomes true.
Two very important metaphysical tools used by atheists in their
argumentation are Russel's principle, and Clifford's principle of
credulity:
1. "Give to any hypothesis that is worth your while to consider just that
degree of credence which the evidence warrants."
-Bertrand Russel, A History of Western Philosophy, pg.816
2. "It is wrong, always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything
upon insufficient evidence."
-W. K. Clifford, Lectures and Essays, vol. 2, pg.186
A third basic principle:
3. Inconsistent and contradictory beliefs are undesirable.
Atheists make an appeal to (3) when attacking the belief sets of
religionists (among others.)
I mention (3) not because there is anything wrong with it, but because it
presumes that people _can_ and _do_ hold inconsistent and contradictory
beliefs. This point should be obvious, because beliefs are arbitrary, and
people's willingness to believe things seems to be without any
limitation, no matter how blatant the contradictions within the belief
set. But sometimes you have to point out the obvious to stupid people.
I must also point out, that none of the above principles are necessary to
define athiesm. An atheist requires no justification nor reason for being
an atheist. He can lack belief in gods because a magic pixie told him to.
There is no implied rationale. However, arguments drawing on (1), (2) and
(3) are extremely common in alt.atheism and pretty much everywhere else.
Keep (1), (2), and (3) in mind.
Weak atheism is the default meaning of the word 'atheism.' Weak atheism
is the lack of belief in (the existence of) gods. A god is something,
which if believed in, makes you a theist. This already sounds
suspiciously circular, nevertheless it is what most atheists say.
Atheists are not in the business of concocting gods. That's the theist's
domain. Refer to Blair's quote above.
Strong atheism is the belief that gods do not exist. It is generally
assumed that a strong atheist must necessarily be a weak atheist. But
this is not true. It is possible to hold contradictory beliefs 'god
exists' and 'gods are nonexistent.' Naturally, this is a pathological
case, but if an atheist wants to tell me it is impossible, then I would
require evidence that people cannot hold such contradictory beliefs. If
this could be demonstrated, then principle (3) is tossed out the window.
It becomes meaningless.
What this means is that the 'strong' component is not sufficient in
itself to define an atheist. The 'weak' component decides. I have further
argued that the 'strong' component is entirely irrelevant to defining or
establishing someone as an atheist:
http://x45.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=556045219
What this all means is that weak atheism, without any strong component,
is the defining characteristic of atheism. It is necessary and
sufficient. It also seems very desirable, since most atheists in
alt.atheism claim they are weak atheists but deny being strong atheists.
So the defining characteristic is weak atheism without strong atheism.
This means 'lack of belief in (the existence of) gods' AND 'lack of
belief in the nonexistence of gods'. I call this nonstrong weak atheism
(nsw atheism).
Belief that someone is an nsw atheist violates principles (1) and (2).
The reason for this, is that one cannot expect any behavioral evidence
from the atheist which will establish both the absence of belief in the
existence of gods, and the absence of belief in the nonexistence of gods.
The only "evidence" that can be put forward is a complete lack of
behavior on any matter related to the existence of gods. Something like
what a bottle of floor wax does when it's sitting in church during mass.
Naturally, this is not "evidence", but a lack of it. One cannot infer nsw
atheism in a person without committing argumentum ad ignorantiam.
The following argument, courtesy of Leonard Timmons, is a different
approach. It hammers the last nail in the coffin for the fantasy that
there can be evidence supporting a person's claim that he is an 'atheist'
in the sense of the canonical definition bandied about in atheist
rhetoric:
http://x21.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=545330851
http://x21.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=547358829
http://x21.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=546236691
http://x39.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=556791542
Fiterman's definition avoids much of the incoherence and illogic of the
common consensus definition, but it does not yet resolve the following:
http://x43.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=550077571
http://x24.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=551221967
*****
Further analysis of the definition of atheism and it's implications:
Leonard Timmons:
http://x46.deja.com/=rd/getdoc.xp?AN=545330851
http://x25.deja.com/=rd/getdoc.xp?AN=547358829
Dr Sinister:
http://x38.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=514811885
http://x46.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=519973355
http://x40.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=524244275
http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=532092749
http://x32.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=519641226
http://x32.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=524273154
http://x43.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=542278223
http://x38.deja.com/=rd/getdoc.xp?AN=515638806
http://x40.deja.com/=rd/getdoc.xp?AN=545792631
For some comments on the gods of atheists:
http://x27.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=499370248
http://x38.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=514811885
The illogic of 'lack of belief':
http://x28.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=507238123
http://x26.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=517236396
http://x35.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=516026617
http://x46.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=519973355
Non-supernatural theism and its implications:
http://x40.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=524244275
http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=532092749
http://x24.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=532433269
All "rationales" for atheism are equivalent to apologetics:
http://x32.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=519641226
http://x32.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=524273154
--
"Men are so necessarily mad, that not to be mad
would amount to another form of madness" - Pascal
Don Kresch
<"tomwilliam76"@no SPAM\"hotmail.com\"> told us all that
>
>
>Don Kresch wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 14:08:26 +0000, in alt.atheism, tom edwards
>> <"tomwilliam76"@no SPAM\"hotmail.com\"> told us all that
>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> A "working" definition rather popular around these parts is: A lack of
>> >> belief in deities(god/s).
>> >>
>> >
>> >you see i don't think it is really possible to be an atheist.. only an
>> >agnostic... you see lacking the belief that god exists is rather like
>> >saying god does not exist.. but how can you know?
>>
>> Is lacking hair (baldness) like having hair?
>
>that sounds more than a bit familiar .. are you sure they're your words
Never said they were exclusively mine.
>
>> Is lacking a sock like having
>> a sock?
>>
>> I think you need to actually learn what "lack" means.
>
>i think i understand what lack means.. lets see in my example i said that lack of
>belief was like having no belief.
No, you said it was rather like saying god does not exist. See above.
>. in your example you said lacking bald ness was not
>the same as having hair .. this is quite correct.. however if we apply the analogy
>back to what i said :
>
>lack of hair (or lack of belief in god) is not the same as having hair (or believing
>in god)
>
>no problems here.. but we still haven't got any further on the question of whether
>lack of belief in god is the same as not believing in god.
You're creating a strawman of your own argument. Congrats.
Lack of belief in the existence of a god necessarily means you, at the
time, do not believe it. This, however, is not the same as stating there is no
god.
Don
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, EAC Decryption squad
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.
"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
Brian Westley
...
>Fiterman's definition of atheism, which I have seen him use before, is a
>great improvement over the usual incoherent bullshit. It still suffers
>from the problem that 'god' and 'spirits' can mean just about anything,
>but at least it does not immediately reduce to incoherence in the manner
>that 'atheism is lack of theism' does.
That definition is only as incoherent as the definition of theism used.
Now go away, fuckhead.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
raven1
wrote:
>drsin...@my-deja.com (Dr Sinister) writes:
>...
>>Fiterman's definition of atheism, which I have seen him use before, is a
>>great improvement over the usual incoherent bullshit. It still suffers
>>from the problem that 'god' and 'spirits' can mean just about anything,
>>but at least it does not immediately reduce to incoherence in the manner
>>that 'atheism is lack of theism' does.
>
>That definition is only as incoherent as the definition of theism used.
>
>Now go away, fuckhead.
I would be interested in seeing how Arvin defines "theism" in this
context, besides worshiping his toaster. No, actually, I lie. I'd be
much more interested in watching Arvin attempt to worship his toaster
by being baptized by immersion with his plugged-in deity tossed into
the water...
Carl Funk
>
> DJ Nozem wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 14:08:26 +0000, tom edwards <"tomwilliam76"@no
> > SPAM\"hotmail.com\"> wrote:
> >
> > >> A "working" definition rather popular around these parts is: A lack of
> > >> belief in deities(god/s).
> >
> > >you see i don't think it is really possible to be an atheist.. only an
> > >agnostic... you see lacking the belief that god exists is rather like
> > >saying god does not exist.. but how can you know?
> >
> > that it does not exist.
>
> I do NOT BELIEVE that god exists : I BELIEVE that god does NOT exist
>
> where is the difference between this pair of statements... both seem to
> strongly negate the existence of god... perhaps you could provide an
> alternative pair to better illustrate the differences.
>
not present in one person's mind. The second is a statement about the
physical universe. Why are you having so much trouble seeing this
distinction?
--
Carl Funk "nil illegitimi carborundum" ICQ#16282427
a.a atheist #1229 member, EAC Decryption Squad
to bypass my SPAM-deflector, it helps if you realize I am
asthmatic. i.e. no SMOKING please!
Matt Miller
<"tomwilliam76"@no SPAM\"hotmail.com\"> says...
>this is not a mind game... i am just exploring an argument. OK so to take it
>from the top.. atheism is a lack of belief in god.. perhaps you can tell me
>if this is the same as making the more categorical statement "GOD DOES NOT
>EXIST".
It isn't.
Have a nice day.
--
Matt Miller | http://pw2.netcom.com/~matmillr | a.a# 357
EAC Spokesmodel
"Under the rocks and stones
there is water underground."
-The Talking Heads
Mark Gradwell
tom edwards wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > A "working" definition rather popular around these parts is: A lack of
> > belief in deities(god/s).
> >
>
> you see i don't think it is really possible to be an atheist.. only an
> agnostic... you see lacking the belief that god exists is rather like
> saying god does not exist.. but how can you know?
>
> so therefore i don't spose its really possible to say that atheism is a
> lack of belief in god.. because that statement is somewhat fallacious
>
<chuckle> Look again. What did I actually say?
--
Mark Gradwell
tom edwards wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > A "working" definition rather popular around these parts is: A lack of
> > belief in deities(god/s).
> >
>
> you see i don't think it is really possible to be an atheist.. only an
> agnostic... you see lacking the belief that god exists is rather like
> saying god does not exist.. but how can you know?
Oh go on then let's have a go at answering this;).
Agnosticism IMO is a state in which the person believes the presence of
God is unknowable. How do you know that it is?
I believe that:
1. People not being told about God's existence
2. People who are told but don't believe he exists
are the same with respect to their atheism
Person 1 is an atheist and so is person 2 IMO.
Using your above definition person 1 would be an agnostic. Surely not?
This leads on to the idea that you could tell anybody anything and
they'd have to believe it just because you told them. If you believe
this I strongly suggest you avoid any kind of retail outlet when in
possesion of cash or credit cards;).
My own position is that logic used on itself like this is useless.
Evidence is the key to unwrapping these furious little circles that
reasoning goes round in. There ain't any though. That's why I don't
believe God exists. In reality that is. He is at least a fictional
character in a very popular book or three.
>
> so therefore i don't spose its really possible to say that atheism is a
> lack of belief in god.. because that statement is somewhat fallacious
>
--
Gregi
tom edwards <"tomwilliam76"@no SPAM\"hotmail.com\"> wrote in message
news:85fgq3$ojs$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk...
> no problems here.. but we still haven't got any further on the question of
whether
help
Hmm, the words "not believing in god" sound like, god exists, but atheists
don't believe in him (it?).
I like to believe that instead of saying that atheists don't believe in god,
say, atheists don't believe in the existance of god. That's what separates
us, atheists, from agnostics.
--
Calm down -- it's only ones and zeros.
Gregi
Richard Harlos
>
>this is not a mind game... i am just exploring an argument. OK so to take it
>from the top.. atheism is a lack of belief in god.. perhaps you can tell me
>if this is the same as making the more categorical statement "GOD DOES NOT
>EXIST".
No, a lack of belief in some god(s) (some prefer "an ABSENCE of belief
in some god(s)") is not the same thing as a positive belief in the
absence of any god(s). Absence of belief is not belief of absence.
>the question of offering proof that god exists is again utterly irrelevant.
No, it is entirely relevant. Believing in some god(s) is something
that we are taught to do. If we are taught to believe that some
god(s) exist, then we may reasonably request some compelling evidence
before we accept such a claim. In the absence of evidence, it is
reasonable to not accept the claim.
The one who claims there is a god, bears the burden to prove that this
alleged god is something other than imaginary. The way to proof is
with some compelling evidence and a sound chain of reasoning about
that evidence. In the absence of compelling evidence, an absence of
belief is quite justified.
Do you believe in the existence of the tooth fairy? Why or why not?
>if you want to take the position of not believing in god then you must
>justify it by proving that god does not exist..
Really? So, if you want to take the position of not believing in the
tooth fairy, then you must justify it by proving that the tooth fairy
does not exist, right?
> if you really want to believe
>that god does not exist, it is not really enough to say i'm going to not
>believe in god until someone else can show me otherwise,
Why isn't it enough to not-believe in something not-proven? Again, an
absence of belief in god is *not* the same thing as a belief in the
absence of god. If you will consider this carefully, the distinction
should become clear to you.
> but instead must convince yourself that god does not exist..
No more so than you must convince yourself that the tooth fairy does
not exist.
> after all the believers (who you
>seem to think are sooo stupid) aren't standing around saying "we're going to
>believe in god until you show us otherwise"
I don't think believers are stupid; I think they are naive and have
fallen prey to the threat that if they don't believe in this
particular myth, they will be subject to an eternity of torture.
And, actually, believers *are* standing around saying, "we're going
to believe in god until you show us otherwise". You wrote, above, "if
you want to take the position of not believing in god then you must
justify it by proving that god does not exist". That sounds, to me,
like you're asserting that the default position is to believe in god
and that those who, like me, do not believe are somehow bearing the
burden of DIS-proving god's existence.
Clearly, your perspective is biased in favor of believing in a god
whose existence you cannot prove. That's your prerogative, but don't
think that your bias is binding upon others. Some of us want to have
some evidence that the thing(s) we believe in exist somewhere other
than in our imagination.
--
,,, Richard Harlos ~ alt.atheism #1698
( ..) agnostic atheist freethinker
.--oo0--(_)--0oo-----------------------------------------.
( <this space available> )
`--------------------------------------------------------'
Charles Fiterman
tom edwards wrote:
> > An atheist is a person who from principal or belief does not
> > willingly serve or worship any gods or spirits.
>
> this definition does not seem to preclude the existence of god(s), only
> to preclude their service or worship. I would ask you then what
> separates an athiest under this definition from an agnostic?
The sun is a god in several religions. By logic and common usage that makes
it a god. Check some American dictionaries you will find about a dozen line
items for lower case god and most describe things that exist. Idols, and
emperors, rock stars and planets. Most gods are small statues and exist.
Gods that obviously exist outnumber mythical gods by at least five powers
of ten. Go to any store selling Indian, dot or feather take your pick,
handicrafts and look at all the gods on sale cheap.
And those things are absolutely gods. As a child a Pima shaman explained to
me "These things (earth, sun, wind and sky) are gods in the traditional
religion of our people. We respect that tradition." Look closely no false
claims. The religion is based on ethnic identity and all those gods have to
do is support it. And they do their job. Roman emperors were gods and they
did what was expected of them.
So if you have to deny the existence of all gods to be an atheist that
excludes logical speakers of American English except for solipsists and
maybe not them. You have a definition that includes nobody or close. Since
I call myself an atheist I'd say the definition is busted.
The strongest claim I can make against physically observable gods is that I
don't serve or worship any. I even own a few as decorations.
As to being atheist or agnostic you can be both as easily as you can be a
Chicago Cub fan and like beer. You don't have to chose, quite the opposite
the two go together very well.
Charles Fiterman
Dr Sinister wrote:
> hotmail.com (tomwilliam76@NoSPAM) wrote in
> <85ft7t$pt6$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>:
>
> >Charles Fiterman wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
> >> An atheist is a person who from principal or belief does not
> >> willingly serve or worship any gods or spirits.
> >
> >this definition does not seem to preclude the existence of god(s), only
> >to preclude their service or worship. I would ask you then what
> >separates an athiest under this definition from an agnostic?
>
> Fiterman's definition of atheism, which I have seen him use before, is a
> great improvement over the usual incoherent bullshit. It still suffers
> from the problem that 'god' and 'spirits' can mean just about anything,
> but at least it does not immediately reduce to incoherence in the manner
> that 'atheism is lack of theism' does.
If you open a few American dictionaries looking for lower case god you will
find about a dozen line items idols and emperors, male beings with
supernatural powers and rock stars. Most of these things clearly exist. And
the example sentences invariably describe things that exist as do most
sentences containing the word in current literature. "If you didn't live
under Hitler you wouldn't understand, we were following a living god."
I believe these line items have a common thread that allows you to tell what
is and is not a god and this thread is described by many theologians
including Paul Tillich.
Some common nouns describe a relationship rather than any intrinsic quality.
If you live in a cardboard box that box is your home. That doesn't give it
cable TV and a Jacuzzi. The cold may enter, the wind may enter, the rain may
enter but the police may not enter your home without a warrant. Thus have the
courts ruled of a cardboard box used as a home in a public park.
If you go by yourself into the forest and worship a juniper tree as a god, a
god it is. That doesn't give it sapience or supernatural power. It will not
protect it from parasites or the developer's ax. But your worship of that
tree has all the legal dignity of the Catholic church with its billion
members, art treasures and bureaucratic structure. And unlike the trinity
your tree is quite real.
In the spirit of mathematical induction "A thing is a god if treated as a
god. Stalin was a god."
This makes it clear what an atheist is and why its important and why someone
would want to be one. It avoids claiming that the sun either isn't a god or
doesn't exist.
Christopher A. Lee
Michael Alexander <kest...@worldnet.att.xxx.net> wrote:
>An atheists doesn't believe that any particular god exists. Does some
>unknown god exist? It isn't important, because you can't obey and unknown
>any god.
This particular atheist didn't, yet he is still atheist. This
atheist was never taught to believe in deity as a child and
therefore has no reason even to consider "obeying, following
or worhipping" any god.
Nicholas Wren
On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 08:05:05 -0600, Charles Fiterman
<c...@geodesic.com> wrote:
>> >> An atheist is a person who from principal or belief does not
>> >> willingly serve or worship any gods or spirits.
I missed the thread this originated in, so let me see if I'm
understanding this correctly. By this definition, a person who has no
belief in any gods because of never having heard of any would not be
an atheist, whereas a god-hater who definitely believes a specific god
exists but refuses to worship it would be an atheist. Is that how
this definition would work? I assume that means that of theist or
atheist, a person could be either, neither, or both.
This seems to be at variance with the more common usages, so I'm
guessing you mean to make an improvement on them. What are you
looking to gain by this departure?
Nick
Dan
> Some common nouns describe a relationship rather than any intrinsic quality.
> If you live in a cardboard box that box is your home. That doesn't give it
> cable TV and a Jacuzzi. The cold may enter, the wind may enter, the rain may
> enter but the police may not enter your home without a warrant. Thus have the
> courts ruled of a cardboard box used as a home in a public park.
I am only left wondering if I can refuse the police entry to Greater London, on
the same grounds? ;)
> If you go by yourself into the forest and worship a juniper tree as a god, a
> god it is. That doesn't give it sapience or supernatural power. It will not
> protect it from parasites or the developer's ax. But your worship of that
> tree has all the legal dignity of the Catholic church with its billion
> members, art treasures and bureaucratic structure.
Not quite true ... the Catholic church is richer, and in most cases rigged the
setting up of the judiciary in favour of their beliefs.
If I demand a day off work as a religious observance for my juniper tree I will
be laughed at, whereas if I do it as a religious observance for catholicism I
will get away with it. This is because many people are catholics, whereas only I
worship my juniper tree (I can't believe I just wrote that).
But it is of the same *quality* as catholicism, even if it does not have the same
recognition as an institution.
I live in the UK btw, so may be under a different judicial system.
> And unlike the trinity
> your tree is quite real.
And it brings forth juniper berries! A miracle ...
> In the spirit of mathematical induction "A thing is a god if treated as a
> god. Stalin was a god."
Not a very efficient one, but clearly by the operational definition yes he was.
> This makes it clear what an atheist is and why its important and why someone
> would want to be one. It avoids claiming that the sun either isn't a god or
> doesn't exist.
This is as in weak atheism? I dislike the term "weak" BTW, since it seems a
stronger position to take.
Strong atheism, as I understand it, would claim that the sun is not a god?
Paul King
Ed. Stoebenau <rot13-r...@zvqjnl.hpuvpntb.rqh> wrote:
>Indeed it would. And some (most? all???) _strong_ atheists would
>claim to know that God does not exist.
Not "all" because I don't.
To claim to "know" implies a strong degree of confidence - more so that I
feel is warranted when denying the existence of something which is either
so poorly defined such that there are no clear expected consequences of
it's existence or so disconnected from our experience tat there are no
detectable consequences.
If using the definition of knowledge as "justified true belief" I do not
feel that the justification is strong enough to say that my belief that
there is no God is definitively true. Or to put it another way I don't
know that I know there is no God :-)
LindaGee
Charles Fiterman wrote in message <387C8A11...@geodesic.com>...
>
>
>Dr Sinister wrote:
>
>> hotmail.com (tomwilliam76@NoSPAM) wrote in
>> <85ft7t$pt6$1...@scotsman.ed.ac.uk>:
>>
>> >Charles Fiterman wrote:
>>
>> (snip)
>>
>> >> An atheist is a person who from principal or belief does not
>> >> willingly serve or worship any gods or spirits.
>> >
>> >this definition does not seem to preclude the existence of god(s), only
>> >to preclude their service or worship. I would ask you then what
>> >separates an athiest under this definition from an agnostic?
>>
>> Fiterman's definition of atheism, which I have seen him use before, is a
>> great improvement over the usual incoherent bullshit. It still suffers
>> from the problem that 'god' and 'spirits' can mean just about anything,
>> but at least it does not immediately reduce to incoherence in the manner
>> that 'atheism is lack of theism' does.
>
>find about a dozen line items idols and emperors, male beings with
>supernatural powers and rock stars. Most of these things clearly exist. And
>the example sentences invariably describe things that exist as do most
>sentences containing the word in current literature. "If you didn't live
>under Hitler you wouldn't understand, we were following a living god."
>
>I believe these line items have a common thread that allows you to tell
what
>is and is not a god and this thread is described by many theologians
>including Paul Tillich.
>
quality.
>If you live in a cardboard box that box is your home. That doesn't give it
>cable TV and a Jacuzzi. The cold may enter, the wind may enter, the rain
may
>enter but the police may not enter your home without a warrant. Thus have
the
>courts ruled of a cardboard box used as a home in a public park.
>
a
>god it is. That doesn't give it sapience or supernatural power. It will not
>protect it from parasites or the developer's ax. But your worship of that
>tree has all the legal dignity of the Catholic church with its billion
>your tree is quite real.
>
>god. Stalin was a god."
>
someone
>would want to be one. It avoids claiming that the sun either isn't a god or
>doesn't exist.
This suggests that it is worship being protected for worshipping's sake
alone; as though one worships just for the heck of it; without any other
rational/reasonable standard for the so doing. Are we to presume that
atheists are promulgating that there is to be no rational/reasonable
standard for worship? Or simply forget about any establishments for any type
of a standardization of anything whatsoever. Moreover, if one area of
endeavor does get the benefit of having a standard put forth, why not any
and/or all other areas of endeavoring?
Linda
Sci.Phil.Meta.
Charles Fiterman
Nicholas Wren wrote:
> (groups trimmed)
>
> On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 08:05:05 -0600, Charles Fiterman
> <c...@geodesic.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> An atheist is a person who from principal or belief does not
> >> >> willingly serve or worship any gods or spirits.
>
> I missed the thread this originated in, so let me see if I'm
> understanding this correctly. By this definition, a person who has no
> belief in any gods because of never having heard of any would not be
> an atheist, whereas a god-hater who definitely believes a specific god
> exists but refuses to worship it would be an atheist. Is that how
> this definition would work? I assume that means that of theist or
> atheist, a person could be either, neither, or both.
Yes exactly. The emperor Caligula was a god by law and custom. The Roman
Senate controlled the official religion and declared him a god. Various
Macro the head of the guard said "There are those who may doubt for it is
man's nature to doubt. But if any deny it the more fool he." I think that
sums it up nicely. He did all that was expected of his divine status. I
have no doubts whatever that he was a god or that he was absolutly real.
This does not imply supernatural power for none was expected. He was as
nasty a psychopath as has ever lived. Given that he can't get his hands on
me I will not serve or worship him. To do so would be vile and degrading.
If I willingly worshiped him I would not be an atheist no matter what my
opinions on the existence of Thor, Kali etc.
I do not serve or worship any such things. For some it is because they are
likely to by myths, for others because they are obviously clay or stone
and for others because they are madmen elevated to divinity who can't get
their hands on me. I regard this as a fundimental condition of my dignity.
> This seems to be at variance with the more common usages, so I'm
> guessing you mean to make an improvement on them. What are you
> looking to gain by this departure?
>
Common usage does not include emperor worshipers, sun worshipers, tree
worshipers etc. as atheists. But all those things exist. I'm looking to
accurately reflect common usage on who is and is not an atheist not common
definitions of what an atheist is. The common definitions are simple
enough but they don't reflect usage.
Charles Fiterman
Dan wrote:
> Not quite true ... the Catholic church is richer, and in most cases rigged the
> setting up of the judiciary in favour of their beliefs.
Here in America we have a constitutional separation between church and state.
> If I demand a day off work as a religious observance for my juniper tree I will
> be laughed at, whereas if I do it as a religious observance for catholicism I
> will get away with it. This is because many people are catholics, whereas only I
> worship my juniper tree (I can't believe I just wrote that).
Here you get personal days to use as you please. Christmas, Ramadan whatever.
George Ricker
> Nicholas Wren wrote:
>
> > (groups trimmed)
> >
> > On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 08:05:05 -0600, Charles Fiterman
> > <c...@geodesic.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> >> An atheist is a person who from principal or belief does not
> > >> >> willingly serve or worship any gods or spirits.
> >
Actually they do. Most atheists are content with the definition of
atheists as people who don't believe in god(s). Most of us don't accept
your premise that because other people call things like the sun, an
emporer, or a juniper tree "gods" we are obliged to do likewise.
However, let's compromise. I propose we leave the definition of atheism
alone, as it seems to be perfectly satisfactory for most of us who use the
label.
Instead, let's coin a new term ... "Fitermanist." A Fitermanist will be a
person who believes gods exist (gods being defined as anything anyone
chooses to worship) but doesn't worship them. :-)
What say you?
--
George Ricker
"Goddidit" is not an answer. It is simply a
pietistic method of begging all questions.
Dan
Charles Fiterman wrote:
> Dan wrote:
>
> > Not quite true ... the Catholic church is richer, and in most cases rigged the
> > setting up of the judiciary in favour of their beliefs.
>
> Here in America we have a constitutional separation between church and state.
Good thing too ...
Charles Fiterman
LindaGee wrote:
> This suggests that it is worship being protected for worshipping's sake
> alone; as though one worships just for the heck of it; without any other
> rational/reasonable standard for the so doing. Are we to presume that
> atheists are promulgating that there is to be no rational/reasonable
> standard for worship? Or simply forget about any establishments for any type
> of a standardization of anything whatsoever. Moreover, if one area of
> endeavor does get the benefit of having a standard put forth, why not any
> and/or all other areas of endeavoring?
Worship, speech, belief etc. are protected because the founding fathers had
experience with governments that intruded.
If you don't own your own mind, if you don't have the right to use it as you
will what do you own? What happens in much prayer and meditation is that people
manipulate their own mental states. Manipulating your own mental states is a
useful tool. I use it to get to sleep, to work on programs etc. People use it to
break bricks with their hands.
Its also dangerous. You don't want to manipulate your mental states to believe
things because you lose contact with reality. You become the easy target of
confidence men. What happened in Jonesbourough is a confidence man got people to
believe and to manipulate their own mental states to eliminate doubt and in the
end they all drank poison Cool Aid because he told them to.
One way to manipulate your own mental states is with drugs. I regard that as an
unusually stupid thing to do. I would never do it except under very special
circumstances and under medical supervision. But when you go under anesthesia
that is what you do. However if you don't own your own mind what do you own? I
defend your right to screw up your mind any way you want, theology, surgery,
chemistry or slege hammer. It is your mind.
stoney
SPAM\"hotmail.com\"> wrote:
]>
]>i wonder if anyone could help me with a definition of atheism
Easy, look at the word construction. Apolitical, atheism,
asynchronous=without politics, without theism, without
synchronization.
Stoney
stoney
SPAM\"hotmail.com\"> wrote:
]>
]>
]>>
]>>
]>> A "working" definition rather popular around these parts is: A
lack of
]>> belief in deities(god/s).
]>>
]>
]>you see i don't think it is really possible to be an atheist.. only
an
]>agnostic... you see lacking the belief that god exists is rather
like
]>saying god does not exist.. but how can you know?
No, it doesn't. It means theists like yourself haven't proven your
case.
]>so therefore i don't spose its really possible to say that atheism
]>is a lack of belief in god.. because that statement is somewhat
]>fallacious
Bullshit. It's dead accurate, and theists are terrified that someone
can actually stand on their hind legs and state they lack belief in
god(s)/goddess(es). It terrifys theists so they keep coming up with
the same worn out bullshit to salve their bruised egos.
Stoney
7
paragraphs of bullshit to explain why i am an atheist, what type of atheist
i am, what defines my type of atheist, bla bla bla. fuck you, fuck your
toaster. if you or any one else wants to worship a toaster, that's swell
because i personally hold your toaster in higher regard then your gods. why?
because it's there. it exists. it performs greater miracles than any god:
two wonderfully crisp pieces of toast for me to enjoy. your god has never
given me any toast. perhaps it's because i'm a non-believer? do you
believers get toast? if you do, sign me up. i might reconsider my atheism
for a slice of toast. how about that?? -7
--
***
we have no butter! there is no butter left!
if you want some butter, you better get
your ass in line. same to all you neo-nazi
punks. if you want yer' butter, you can get
in line with the rest of em. in the meantime,
i will be feasting upon this simply delectable
spread. so get back in line.
Dr Sinister <drsin...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8EB8EEF9...@216.254.136.142...
Puck Greenman
SPAM\"hotmail.com\"> wrote:
>you see i don't think it is really possible to be an atheist..
The wisdom of the god soaked.
> only an
>agnostic...
Not very original, but still.
> you see lacking the belief that god exists is rather like
>saying god does not exist..
Yes, it is rather, isn't it.
> but how can you know?
How can we know that the sun will rise in the morning, or that
the next time you turn on the shower the water will be wet?
The honest answer is that we cannot, but on the strength of
billions of repeat observations, it is reasonable to assume
that such will be the case.
Much the same can be said for the existence/non-existence of
the supernatural.
The difference here is that we are looking at the opposite
situation, here we are looking at billions of trials, all
failing, and if any claimed success, they were never able
to demonstrate it again.
In the face of such an overwhelming lack of evidence, it is
reasonable to assume there is nothing there.
How can you, faced with exactly the same amount of evidence,
assume that there is.
>
>so therefore i don't spose its really possible to say that atheism is a
>lack of belief in god..
So what is it then?
> because that statement is somewhat fallacious
Is that right?
Puck #162
BAAWA Knight
GOC IC EAC Underwear Operations
We Can Realy Twist Your Knickers
The spelling, like any opinion
stated here, is purely my own.
Dan
> One way to manipulate your own mental states is with drugs. I regard that as an
> unusually stupid thing to do. I would never do it except under very special
> circumstances and under medical supervision.
Well, this may not be as true as you would like to think.
I expect you take caffeine and tannin as most people do (in fact tannin is rather
hard to avoid). These are mind altering substances.
Also I expect you eat onions. I am informed that certain religious traditions in
India add the exclusion of onions to a vegetarian diet because onions contain
substances which increase sexual aggression. Similarly I am led to believe that an
ingestion of large amounts of salt will alter one's state of mind. Ever heard of a
sugar rush? Chocolate (in fact anything with cocoa in it) contains psychadelic
drugs, which are also highly addictive. Aubergines, or eggplants, contain larger
than normal amounts of nicotene. Ditto spinach. In fact, I can personally verify
that having given up smoking two years ago I still get withdrawal symptoms the day
after eating a large portion of aubergine.
This is not to mention the mind-altering substances in coriander, nutmeg and various
other spices.
So as simple a thing as diet can manipulate one's mental states. Try subsisting on
fruit and brown rice for a couple of weeks, and then tell me I'm wrong ...
DJ Nozem
<rot13-r...@zvqjnl.hpuvpntb.rqh> wrote:
>>> Believing that it doesn't exist is not the
>>> same as claiming that it doesn't.
><piggybacking for a sec>
>It seems that for all practical purposes the two are equivalent, or
>can be considered so. The only difference is that under one
>definition of claim, a claim is a public event, a public admittance of
>belief.
Perhaps I should have put it differently, but if one is making a claim
that should in my eyes always be from knowledge and not from belief.
So if you say "No gods exist" you're in my eyes not saying "the little
evidence we humans have obtained on the nature of the universe
reasonably leads me to believe that there are no gods", which can be
justified, but "I have knowledge that no gods exist". If you claim the
last, please present this knowledge.
Existence is futile - Everything is going to be -
Nothing was meant to be - We give meaning to eachother
DJ Nozem #1465 zwag...@multiweb.nl
Nicholas Wren
<c...@geodesic.com> wrote:
>
>
>Nicholas Wren wrote:
>
>> (groups trimmed)
>>
>> On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 08:05:05 -0600, Charles Fiterman
>> <c...@geodesic.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> >> An atheist is a person who from principal or belief does not
>> >> >> willingly serve or worship any gods or spirits.
>>
>> I missed the thread this originated in, so let me see if I'm
>> understanding this correctly. By this definition, a person who has no
>> belief in any gods because of never having heard of any would not be
>> an atheist, whereas a god-hater who definitely believes a specific god
>> exists but refuses to worship it would be an atheist. Is that how
>> this definition would work? I assume that means that of theist or
>> atheist, a person could be either, neither, or both.
>
>Yes exactly. The emperor Caligula was a god by law and custom. The Roman
>Senate controlled the official religion and declared him a god. Various
>Macro the head of the guard said "There are those who may doubt for it is
>man's nature to doubt. But if any deny it the more fool he." I think that
>sums it up nicely. He did all that was expected of his divine status. I
>have no doubts whatever that he was a god or that he was absolutly real.
>This does not imply supernatural power for none was expected. He was as
>nasty a psychopath as has ever lived. Given that he can't get his hands on
>me I will not serve or worship him. To do so would be vile and degrading.
>If I willingly worshiped him I would not be an atheist no matter what my
>opinions on the existence of Thor, Kali etc.
>
>I do not serve or worship any such things. For some it is because they are
>likely to by myths, for others because they are obviously clay or stone
>and for others because they are madmen elevated to divinity who can't get
>their hands on me. I regard this as a fundimental condition of my dignity.
I call myself an atheist with respect to my understanding of what a
god is. If someone wishes to call me a theist with respect to some
trivial god, then it doesn't bother me to be a theist in that trivial
sense. It's got nothing to do with me or what I think.
>> This seems to be at variance with the more common usages, so I'm
>> guessing you mean to make an improvement on them. What are you
>> looking to gain by this departure?
>>
>
>Common usage does not include emperor worshipers, sun worshipers, tree
>worshipers etc. as atheists. But all those things exist. I'm looking to
>accurately reflect common usage on who is and is not an atheist not common
>definitions of what an atheist is. The common definitions are simple
>enough but they don't reflect usage.
Your attempt to circumnavigate the trivial gods can yet run aground on
trivial definitions of worship. If you once grant the legitimacy of
calling a toaster a god, then using a toaster or even acknowledging
the mere existence of a toaster could, with equal legitimacy, be
called worship.
I think you will find it less work not to try to accommodate such
pointless wordplay. Leave the silly definitions to silly people.
Their labels for you are only persuasive to other silly people.
Nick
>
>
>
>
YOELK
>
> i wonder if anyone could help me with a definition of atheism
My definition:
A lack of belief in gods or considering (the question of) gods to be
irrelevant to
one's life.
-----
YOELK
YOELK
Al Klein
wrote:
[piggybacking]
>On Tue, 11 Jan 2000 14:08:26 +0000, tom edwards <"tomwilliam76"@no
>SPAM\"hotmail.com\"> wrote:
>>you see i don't think it is really possible to be an atheist..
>> only an agnostic...
>> you see lacking the belief that god exists is rather like
>>saying god does not exist..
It is, isn't it, except when it isn't. Like when discussing the
matter with people who are actually alive.
>> but how can you know?
You can't, which is agnosticism. But what has that to do with not
believing?
>>so therefore i don't spose its really possible to say that atheism is a
>>lack of belief in god..
Except that that's EXACTLY what atheism is.
>> because that statement is somewhat fallacious
Which statement? That atheism is a lack of belief in god? How is it
fallacious?
--
Al - Unnumbered Atheist #infinity
aklein at villagenet dot com
Charles Fiterman
Dan wrote:
> Charles Fiterman wrote:
>
> > One way to manipulate your own mental states is with drugs. I regard that as an
> > unusually stupid thing to do. I would never do it except under very special
> > circumstances and under medical supervision.
>
> Well, this may not be as true as you would like to think.
You have an excellent point. I avoid altering my mental states in gross ways but not
minor ones. I have a glass of wine with dinner but not a glass of vodka.
Charles Fiterman
Nicholas Wren wrote:
> Your attempt to circumnavigate the trivial gods can yet run aground on
> trivial definitions of worship. If you once grant the legitimacy of
> calling a toaster a god, then using a toaster or even acknowledging
> the mere existence of a toaster could, with equal legitimacy, be
> called worship.
Unofficial emperor worship is one of the great religions of the age. Hitler and
Stalin were hardly trivial gods and answering them is hardly a trivial pursuit.
People don't worship gods because they can do card tricks they worship them
because they inspire fear and greed. The card tricks are simply a way to
inspire fear and greed. Nobody worships Houdini and he did great card tricks.
Nobody worships the big bang even though it started the universe because it
doesn't inspire fear and greed.
If the universe was created by an abstract intelligence that didn't want
worship and didn't employ confidence men that intelligence wouldn't be a god it
would be a construction company. Nobody would worship it anymore than they
worship the Polombo brothers. If it said hello and did a few card tricks to
establish its identity it still wouldn't be a god it would be a visiting alien.
Nobody would worship it anymore than they worship the ambassador from Italy.
Gods are gods only because they are worshiped and worshiped only because they
inspire fear and greed.
Caligula was worshiped because he had the allegiance of armed thugs who
supported him for profit. Jesus is worshiped for the same reason. Constantine,
Justinian, Cortez etc. were all nothing but armed thugs who supported the
worship of Jesus for a profit.
If you want to argue effectively against religion there is no better way than
to point all this out.
People will ask "How do you know there are not gods?" and you can say you know
there are and point to some disgusting gangster cloaked in official divinity.
"See that disgusting gangster is a god. How could you worship such a thing?"
If your toaster can get worship by inspiring fear and greed it is indeed a god.
Ed. Stoebenau
Sounds good. I guess I better just say "some" then.
--
Ed. Stoebenau
a#143
Eric Gunnerson
"Dan" <daniel....@gecm.com> wrote in message
news:387F32A8...@gecm.com...
> Charles Fiterman wrote:
>
> > One way to manipulate your own mental states is with drugs. I regard
that as an
> > unusually stupid thing to do. I would never do it except under very
special
> > circumstances and under medical supervision.
>
> Well, this may not be as true as you would like to think.
>
Yes, although the psychoactivity of many substances has not been studied in
a controlled manner, and the placebo effect is strong enough to explain many
assertions.
Note that, for example, for years people have thought that eating too much
sugar can lead to hyperactivity in children. But that's been largely
disproven. I've posted the first link I found that had any credibility to
it, but there are some good studies behind it.
http://parentsplace.com/expert/nutritionist/nguidelines/qa/0,3488,5442,00.ht
ml
Andrew Lias
Nicholas Wren <-ng...@gvtc.com-> wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 12:34:11 -0600, Charles Fiterman
><c...@geodesic.com> wrote:
>
>>Yes exactly. The emperor Caligula was a god by law and custom.
>
>I call myself an atheist with respect to my understanding of what a
>god is. If someone wishes to call me a theist with respect to some
>trivial god, then it doesn't bother me to be a theist in that trivial
>sense. It's got nothing to do with me or what I think.
You may as well be arguing with a brick wall, Wren. These points have
been raised, again and again, to Mr. Fitterman, over a multitude of years.
His opinion is immutable and debating the point with him is a waste of
your time. As far as Mr. Fitterman is concerned, the only relevant
qualification for godhood is that someone identify something as a god and
there is no possible argument that you can raise which will motivate him
to modify that contention.
At least we can applaud him for his sense of independence.
--
Please direct all replies to anrwlias AT hotmail.com | Siste viator
*-----------*------------------*-----------------------*------------*
Christian Fundamentalism: The doctrine that there is an absolutely
powerful, infinitely knowledgeable, universe spanning entity that is
deeply and personally concerned about my sex life.
*-----------*------------------*-----------------------*------------*
http://www.wco.com/~anrwlias
Mark Richardson
wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 12:34:11 -0600, Charles Fiterman
><c...@geodesic.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Nicholas Wren wrote:
>>
>>> (groups trimmed)
>>>
>I call myself an atheist with respect to my understanding of what a
>god is. If someone wishes to call me a theist with respect to some
>trivial god, then it doesn't bother me to be a theist in that trivial
>sense. It's got nothing to do with me or what I think.
>
That is actually very close to the spirit of what charles is saying.
>>> This seems to be at variance with the more common usages, so I'm
>>> guessing you mean to make an improvement on them. What are you
>>> looking to gain by this departure?
>>>
>>
>>Common usage does not include emperor worshipers, sun worshipers, tree
>>worshipers etc. as atheists. But all those things exist. I'm looking to
>>accurately reflect common usage on who is and is not an atheist not common
>>definitions of what an atheist is. The common definitions are simple
>>enough but they don't reflect usage.
>
>Your attempt to circumnavigate the trivial gods can yet run aground on
>trivial definitions of worship. If you once grant the legitimacy of
>calling a toaster a god, then using a toaster or even acknowledging
>the mere existence of a toaster could, with equal legitimacy, be
>called worship.
>
Well do you really care what someone else considers worship?
Do you actually consider it worship to simply acknowledge somethings
existence?
I would not.
If someone said I was worshiping a toaster because I acknowledge its
existence I would simply laugh at them.
Do you believe in Hitler?
This has two quite distinct meanings.
(1)You believe in Hitlers existence.
(2)You are a follower of Hitler.
I would not go out of my way to disbelieve in the existence of Hitler
BUT I would go out of my way not to believe in Hitler.
What Charles is talking about is a kind of moral imperative.
He is saying
Don't be a worm!
Don't bow down before any God!
(Unless it gets you out of having your head cut off or being torn
apart by wild beasts in which case - lie! 8-) )
>I think you will find it less work not to try to accommodate such
>pointless wordplay. Leave the silly definitions to silly people.
>Their labels for you are only persuasive to other silly people.
>
>Nick
! Isn't that a tad ethnocentric?
To the people who worshiped the sun it wasn't silly.
"Oh great light ! Bringer of warmth and life..."
I think Charles has a point.
I think his view of the word atheist is completely compatible with
what I think is the more common view in this newsgroup by simply
understanding the different meanings of the word "believe".
I don't believe in "God".
I also doubt that it exists.
What's the big deal about existence?
For me it is a minimal requirement for belief.
If a god cannot even muster existence then of course I cannot believe
in it.
But mere existence is not sufficient reason for worship.
If it was I would worship every mote of dust.
And that would be silly.
Mark.
Mark Richardson
Lias) wrote:
>In article <387f48c5...@news.gvtc.com>,
>Nicholas Wren <-ng...@gvtc.com-> wrote:
>>On Wed, 12 Jan 2000 12:34:11 -0600, Charles Fiterman
>><c...@geodesic.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Yes exactly. The emperor Caligula was a god by law and custom.
>[...]
>>
>>I call myself an atheist with respect to my understanding of what a
>>god is. If someone wishes to call me a theist with respect to some
>>trivial god, then it doesn't bother me to be a theist in that trivial
>>sense. It's got nothing to do with me or what I think.
>
>You may as well be arguing with a brick wall, Wren. These points have
>been raised, again and again, to Mr. Fitterman, over a multitude of years.
>
>His opinion is immutable and debating the point with him is a waste of
>your time. As far as Mr. Fitterman is concerned, the only relevant
>qualification for godhood is that someone identify something as a god and
>there is no possible argument that you can raise which will motivate him
>to modify that contention.
>
Eeek Dilemma!
I like and respect you Andrew, but I am certain that there is
something of value in what Charles says.
At a bare minimum by thinking about Charles idea ,even if you dont
agree with him ultimately, it forces us to come to grips with what
these words actually mean.
And pinning down definite fixed meanings for words like "God" and
"believe" and "faith" are like trying to hold water in a fork.
Any definition of God or god anyone can come up with has exceptions.
So to me, god is whatever the believer says it is.
If someone wants to worship his toaster it has zero effect on me.
(Or You or Nicholas or Charles, I am sure! )
If someone says "my toaster is a god"
You can say "No it isnt!" he can say "yes it is!"... (ad infinitum)
*I* say "I dont care!"
What are they going to say? "yes you do!"?
Hardly!
If someone wants to call his toaster "a frog" we are on solid ground
saying "No it isnt" because there is a list of properties defining
"frog" that you can get pretty near universal agreement on.
Trying to get agreement about what God is from two differnt christians
is near impossible, let alone a christian and a hindu for example.
And ...
I dont think it is the job of atheists to tell theists what are and
what are not gods.
Let them do some bloody work!
8-)
>At least we can applaud him for his sense of independence.
Yes!
I like heretics.
It is a particular weakness of mine.
8-)
Mark.
Nicholas Wren
<c...@geodesic.com> wrote:
>Nicholas Wren wrote:
>
>> Your attempt to circumnavigate the trivial gods can yet run aground on
>> trivial definitions of worship. If you once grant the legitimacy of
>> calling a toaster a god, then using a toaster or even acknowledging
>> the mere existence of a toaster could, with equal legitimacy, be
>> called worship.
>
>Unofficial emperor worship is one of the great religions of the age. Hitler and
>Stalin were hardly trivial gods and answering them is hardly a trivial pursuit.
Citing non-trivial forms of worship does not sidestep the problem of
trivial forms of worship.
>People don't worship gods because they can do card tricks they worship them
>because they inspire fear and greed.
<...>
>Gods are gods only because they are worshiped and worshiped only because they
>inspire fear and greed.
That seems too narrow a definition of worship. Hero worship, movie
and pop star worship, ancestor worship and such have more to do with
admiration, devotion, or veneration than they do fear or greed. And
the fundamental problem remains. Your definition of atheism depends
on things and people being defined as gods which most people would not
consider gods, but that leaves you open to similarly unorthodox
definitions of worship. What is to stop Sinister from saying that
putting bread in the toaster is really a form of worship?
>If you want to argue effectively against religion there is no better way than
>to point all this out.
So the purpose of this exercise is to draw theists into argument?
>People will ask "How do you know there are not gods?" and you can say you know
>there are and point to some disgusting gangster cloaked in official divinity.
>"See that disgusting gangster is a god. How could you worship such a thing?"
At which point they will merely disagree that that gangster is a god.
You could point to the dictionary to back up your definition of god,
but an appeal to the dictionary would simultaneously undermine your
unconventional definition of atheism.
Nick
Nicholas Wren
<m.rich...@utas.edu.au> wrote:
>On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 16:23:12 GMT, -ng...@gvtc.com- (Nicholas Wren)
>wrote:
>>I call myself an atheist with respect to my understanding of what a
>>god is. If someone wishes to call me a theist with respect to some
>>trivial god, then it doesn't bother me to be a theist in that trivial
>>sense. It's got nothing to do with me or what I think.
>>
>That is actually very close to the spirit of what Charles is saying.
It may be similar from his perspective, but it isn't from mine. I
consider the terms theism and atheism both complementary and mutually
excusive, whereas Charles considers them neither. If someone calls
Charles a theist, he can agree and yet maintain that he is an atheist.
In my case, if someone categorizes me as a theist, then I will
consider that that person does not categorize me as an atheist.
>>Your attempt to circumnavigate the trivial gods can yet run aground on
>>trivial definitions of worship. If you once grant the legitimacy of
>>calling a toaster a god, then using a toaster or even acknowledging
>>the mere existence of a toaster could, with equal legitimacy, be
>>called worship.
>>
>Well do you really care what someone else considers worship?
>Do you actually consider it worship to simply acknowledge somethings
>existence?
>I would not.
>If someone said I was worshiping a toaster because I acknowledge its
>existence I would simply laugh at them.
As presumably you would if that person said their toaster was a god.
My point was that if you can grant legitimacy to trivial gods, then it
seems like you'd have to grant similar legitimacy to trivial forms of
worship, which would erode the usefulness of the definition of atheism
Charles is trying to advance.
>What Charles is talking about is a kind of moral imperative.
>He is saying
>Don't be a worm!
>Don't bow down before any God!
I think it's possible to advocate having principles and integrity
without having to redefine atheism. I think saying there are godless
people who believe in the existence of gods is only going to add
confusion to an already muddled term.
>>I think you will find it less work not to try to accommodate such
>>pointless wordplay. Leave the silly definitions to silly people.
>>Their labels for you are only persuasive to other silly people.
>>
>! Isn't that a tad ethnocentric?
>To the people who worshiped the sun it wasn't silly.
>"Oh great light ! Bringer of warmth and life..."
It is not a bias of my ethnicity, but is it a bias of my use of
language? Sure it is. I say Sinister's toaster is a silly god based
on my conception of what a god is. Is your definition of godhood so
broad that there is nothing that would qualify as a silly god?
>I think Charles has a point.
>I think his view of the word atheist is completely compatible with
>what I think is the more common view in this newsgroup by simply
>understanding the different meanings of the word "believe".
I wouldn't say completely compatible. A person who has never heard of
a god does not 'believe' in a god in either sense of the word. Most
people in this group would consider that an atheist, whereas Charles
would not. Charles also says that a person who believes in the
existence of a god can be an atheist, whereas most people in this
group would disagree.
>But mere existence is not sufficient reason for worship.
>If it was I would worship every mote of dust.
>And that would be silly.
If you can have silly worship, surely you can also have silly gods.
Nick
Mark Richardson
wrote:
>On Sat, 15 Jan 2000 06:22:06 GMT, Mark Richardson
><m.rich...@utas.edu.au> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 16:23:12 GMT, -ng...@gvtc.com- (Nicholas Wren)
>>wrote:
>
>>>I call myself an atheist with respect to my understanding of what a
>>>god is. If someone wishes to call me a theist with respect to some
>>>trivial god, then it doesn't bother me to be a theist in that trivial
>>>sense. It's got nothing to do with me or what I think.
>>>
>>That is actually very close to the spirit of what Charles is saying.
>
>It may be similar from his perspective, but it isn't from mine. I
>consider the terms theism and atheism both complementary and mutually
>excusive, whereas Charles considers them neither.
I thought you had argued, quite well that they are complementary and
exclusive - given a particular god.
That the words atheist and theist only make sense in a context of a
particular god.
> If someone calls
>Charles a theist, he can agree and yet maintain that he is an atheist.
Not quite.
If someone says x is God or a god Charles can agree and yet remain an
atheist.
Important difference there.
>In my case, if someone categorizes me as a theist, then I will
>consider that that person does not categorize me as an atheist.
>
Yes, with respect to a particular conception of god.
I have not found any particular conception of god compelling enough
for me to adopt it as my god - so I am an atheist with respect of all
gods I have considered.
I dont expect to start believing in a god any time soon.
>>>Your attempt to circumnavigate the trivial gods can yet run aground on
>>>trivial definitions of worship. If you once grant the legitimacy of
>>>calling a toaster a god, then using a toaster or even acknowledging
>>>the mere existence of a toaster could, with equal legitimacy, be
>>>called worship.
>>>
>>Well do you really care what someone else considers worship?
>>Do you actually consider it worship to simply acknowledge somethings
>>existence?
>>I would not.
>>If someone said I was worshiping a toaster because I acknowledge its
>>existence I would simply laugh at them.
>
>As presumably you would if that person said their toaster was a god.
You see the problem is I don't believe it is the atheist job to go
around telling theists that their god is "not a proper god".
The atheist is saying I don't believe in your god or any god.
>My point was that if you can grant legitimacy to trivial gods, then it
>seems like you'd have to grant similar legitimacy to trivial forms of
>worship, which would erode the usefulness of the definition of atheism
>Charles is trying to advance.
>
Let us see if this helps...
I think we are looking at a categorical definition verses a
operational definition.
If we categorize a hammer by listing a set of specifications that an
object must meet before we can call it a hammer then certain objects
are never going to be hammers.
However if you find a loose nail you can take off your boot
(Looking around carefully to make sure the "hammer police" are not
watching) and bash in the nail.
An operational definition of hammer is something I use to drive nails.
Then a hammer *can be* your boot, or a rock, or a bible.
Same thing here except it is far more difficult to even come up with a
list of attributes that make a god a god.
A hammer is something with which to drive nails.
It doesn't have to be made of wood and steel and have a limited range
of shape and dimension.
A god is something the believer "wants" to be a god.
It doesn't matter if the god is real or imaginary, alive or dead,
conscious or not.
>>What Charles is talking about is a kind of moral imperative.
>>He is saying
>>Don't be a worm!
>>Don't bow down before any God!
>
>I think it's possible to advocate having principles and integrity
>without having to redefine atheism. I think saying there are godless
>people who believe in the existence of gods is only going to add
>confusion to an already muddled term.
>
Well I do believe in the existence of the Pharaohs of egypt.
So I guess I *must* be a theist.
Yet I don't *feel* like a theist.
What is the solution?
Your solution is aparently to say "The pharaoh is not a proper god"?
Yet..
He has temples built to him, sacrifices offered, priests who venerate
him...
Why is he not a god?
Show me your god detector and describe its principle of operation.
8-)
>>>I think you will find it less work not to try to accommodate such
>>>pointless wordplay. Leave the silly definitions to silly people.
>>>Their labels for you are only persuasive to other silly people.
>>>
>>! Isn't that a tad ethnocentric?
>>To the people who worshiped the sun it wasn't silly.
>>"Oh great light ! Bringer of warmth and life..."
>
>It is not a bias of my ethnicity, but is it a bias of my use of
>language? Sure it is. I say Sinister's toaster is a silly god based
>on my conception of what a god is. Is your definition of godhood so
>broad that there is nothing that would qualify as a silly god?
>
I don't tell theists what god is - I ask and listen.
I don't think it is my job to tell theists what god is and is not.
I leave that up to them entirely.
It is their god after all, not mine.
>>I think Charles has a point.
>>I think his view of the word atheist is completely compatible with
>>what I think is the more common view in this newsgroup by simply
>>understanding the different meanings of the word "believe".
>
>I wouldn't say completely compatible. A person who has never heard of
>a god does not 'believe' in a god in either sense of the word. Most
>people in this group would consider that an atheist, whereas Charles
>would not.
A new born doesnt believe in a god OR believe in the existence of a
god.
So I dont think this is a particular problem.
I think it sensible to limit disscusion of atheism to that of adult,
fully concious beings.
(Except if you are making a particular point of argument.)
> Charles also says that a person who believes in the
>existence of a god can be an atheist, whereas most people in this
>group would disagree.
>
I cannot deny the clear evidence that Pharaoh or the Inca existed.
I cannot deny the clear evidence that they were worshiped as gods.
To do either seems slightly insane.
To deny that they were "real" gods is equally problematical, as it
seems to imply I have a "real" god to compare them to.
I don't - I am an atheist!
I can compare them to other, different, conceptions of god but that is
all.
>>But mere existence is not sufficient reason for worship.
>>If it was I would worship every mote of dust.
>>And that would be silly.
>
>If you can have silly worship, surely you can also have silly gods.
>
>Nick
It is my opinion that all gods are equally silly.
The silly - ness of the worshipers is highly variable, but the idea
that some religions are "primative" and some are "enlightened" is
(almost always? invariably?)sheer hubris - the arogance of the
dominant culture.
(ethnocenticity)
Is the religion of the Roman Catholics superior to that of the
Kalahari Bushmen?
Again, how do you measure that?
There is this mythical scale of "intelectual worth" that starts at 1
for animists and ends at 10 for monotheisms.
Who made this scale and what ordering principle did they employ if not
"closeness to *my* conception"?
You seem to have bought into the myth of the superiority of certain
conceptions of God over others.
I would have a very good think about this Nick!
Mark.
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Richardson
m.rich...@utas.edu.au
____________________________________________________________
Mark Richardson
wrote:
>In article <387CC923...@geodesic.com>, c...@geodesic.com wrote:
>
>> Nicholas Wren wrote:
>>
>> > (groups trimmed)
I would say my view is a modification of Charles view, in that I would
say an atheist doesn't believe in any god, even one that did exist!
So an atheist can believe in the existence of the sun, or in the
existence of Caligula, but not "Believe" in them in the sense of
follow, place faith in, or worship.
This fixes the *apparent* problem between the two views.
(The problem is purely aparent not actual.)
>> > This seems to be at variance with the more common usages, so I'm
>> > guessing you mean to make an improvement on them. What are you
>> > looking to gain by this departure?
>> >
>>
>> Common usage does not include emperor worshipers, sun worshipers, tree
>> worshipers etc. as atheists. But all those things exist. I'm looking to
>> accurately reflect common usage on who is and is not an atheist not common
>> definitions of what an atheist is. The common definitions are simple
>> enough but they don't reflect usage.
>
>Actually they do. Most atheists are content with the definition of
>atheists as people who don't believe in god(s). Most of us don't accept
>your premise that because other people call things like the sun, an
>emporer, or a juniper tree "gods" we are obliged to do likewise.
>
He is not saying you are obliged to worship them.
The Pharaohs existed, to deny the existence of Pharaoh, seems a tad
insane.
But is he *my* god?
No, he is someone elses god.
What's the problem?
You are an atheist yet somehow you *know* what a real, true or proper
god is??!!
What is a "true" god like?
Care to point out an example?
8-)
Let me guess! It is a lot like the god of St Thomas Aquinas and his
mates, right?
Oh brother! Have you allowed "the church" to dictate terms or what!
Away with that bullshit!
I don't let that particular multinational cartel tell me what I can
and cannot think, thank you very much!
The very idea makes my skin crawl!
Charles Fiterman
Nicholas Wren wrote:
>
> >But mere existence is not sufficient reason for worship.
> >If it was I would worship every mote of dust.
> >And that would be silly.
>
> If you can have silly worship, surely you can also have silly gods.
I doubt you can have any other kind. But I'm an atheist. Consider the moron
things the Christian god is credited with doing starting with letting his
only son die on the cross to avenge his own anger against a man and woman
four thousand years dead.
By comparison toaster worship is sane.
Dan
> Dan wrote:
>
> > Charles Fiterman wrote:
> >
> > > One way to manipulate your own mental states is with drugs. I regard that as an
> > > unusually stupid thing to do. I would never do it except under very special
> > > circumstances and under medical supervision.
> >
> > Well, this may not be as true as you would like to think.
>
> You have an excellent point. I avoid altering my mental states in gross ways but not
> minor ones. I have a glass of wine with dinner but not a glass of vodka.
That sounds more acceptable, since it's the position that I take :)
George Ricker
m.rich...@utas.edu.au (Mark Richardson) wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2000 08:36:14 +0100, gri...@iu.net (George Ricker)
> wrote:
<SNIP> Delete material to save space
Charles Fiterman wrote:
> >> Common usage does not include emperor worshipers, sun worshipers, tree
> >> worshipers etc. as atheists. But all those things exist. I'm looking to
> >> accurately reflect common usage on who is and is not an atheist not common
> >> definitions of what an atheist is. The common definitions are simple
> >> enough but they don't reflect usage.
I wrote:
> >Actually they do. Most atheists are content with the definition of
> >atheists as people who don't believe in god(s). Most of us don't accept
> >your premise that because other people call things like the sun, an
> >emporer, or a juniper tree "gods" we are obliged to do likewise.
> >
Mark Richardson wrote:
> He is not saying you are obliged to worship them.
> The Pharaohs existed, to deny the existence of Pharaoh, seems a tad
> insane.
Sure, but that's not what we're talking about. What we are talking about
is whether or not I believe the Pharoah is a "god." I don't. Charles *is*
saying that I am obliged to recognize Pharoah as a "god" because there are
other people who have done so. I disagree. I know Pharoahs existed. And I
know that, for a time, Pharoahs were worshipped as gods. I don't believe
they were - or are - gods. Understand???
> But is he *my* god?
> No, he is someone elses god.
>
> What's the problem?
The problem is that there is a world of difference between recognizing
that there are real entities that are called "god" by some people and
believing that those entities actually are gods.
> You are an atheist yet somehow you *know* what a real, true or proper
> god is??!!
I "know" that I don't believe in god(s). I don't believe in god(s) called
Jesus, Yahweh, Vishnu, Allah, Thor, Zeus, Jove, Neptune, Coyote, Pharoah
or the little stone idol in the middle of some village somewhere. I don't
believe in any gods.
> What is a "true" god like?
> Care to point out an example?
> 8-)
An entity, be it a being or an object, is identified as a "god" by those
who worship it because they believe it has certain attributes that will
benefit them or will keep them from harm if they worship it. Most commonly
that attribute is a supernatural power that (a) will be used to their
advantage if they worship it or (b) will be used against them if they fail
to propitiate it.
Indeed, if you look in most dictionaries, one of their definitions of
"god" (lower case, not upper case) is precisely that. Here's an example
from Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary: "a being or object
believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require
man's worship." It seems to me that's a pretty good description of what
most people mean when they refer to gods. It leaves room for the gods
worshipped by both major and minor religions. It includes both upper- and
lower-case gods.
Now let's also recognizes that there are colloquial uses of the word "god"
that extend its meaning beyond the religious context. A being or object
that is of supreme value to someone might be said to be that person's god,
as in "Money is his god." That's not what I'm talking about here, and I
don't think it's what Charles is talking about either. We all recognize
that, in that context, gods exist. But that context is highyly
idiosyncratic and might include virtually anything. It has nothing to do
with either theism or atheism.
I have absolutely no problem with anyone worshipping anything and calling
it a god, be it a juniper bush, a little stone idol, the sun, some
emporer, or an archetype preserved from ancient mythology.
I do have a problem with Charles' insistence that because someone else
identifies something as a deity I am obliged to concur. I don't believe in
deities of any sort. Other people are free to believe they exist and to
worship them or not as they choose. I don't believe godhood exists except
in the minds of the true believers who choose to confer it on some object
or being.
> Let me guess! It is a lot like the god of St Thomas Aquinas and his
> mates, right?
Obviously you guessed wrong.
> Oh brother! Have you allowed "the church" to dictate terms or what!
> Away with that bullshit!
> I don't let that particular multinational cartel tell me what I can
> and cannot think, thank you very much!
>
> The very idea makes my skin crawl!
I quite agree with you. I also try very hard not to assume that I know
what someone else is thinking before they have an opportunity to tell me.
Now ... you were saying?
> Mark.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Mark Richardson
> m.rich...@utas.edu.au
>
> ____________________________________________________________
--
George Ricker
"Goddidit" is not an answer. It is simply a
pietistic method of begging all questions.
Andrew Lias
Mark Richardson <m.rich...@utas.edu.au> wrote:
>On 14 Jan 2000 13:17:07 -0800, anrw...@shell.ncal.verio.com (Andrew
>Lias) wrote:
>
>>His opinion is immutable and debating the point with him is a waste of
>>your time. As far as Mr. Fitterman is concerned, the only relevant
>>qualification for godhood is that someone identify something as a god and
>>there is no possible argument that you can raise which will motivate him
>>to modify that contention.
>>
>Eeek Dilemma!
>I like and respect you Andrew, but I am certain that there is
>something of value in what Charles says.
Well, everyone is welcome to their opinion, of course. :-)
>At a bare minimum by thinking about Charles idea ,even if you dont
>agree with him ultimately, it forces us to come to grips with what
>these words actually mean.
>And pinning down definite fixed meanings for words like "God" and
>"believe" and "faith" are like trying to hold water in a fork.
>
>Any definition of God or god anyone can come up with has exceptions.
>So to me, god is whatever the believer says it is.
Well, I can agree that the definition is slippery without having to go so
far as to accept that it's *whatever* the believer says it is. There's a
lot of terms and concepts in the world that defy specific definition while
still allowing us to agree that some things aren't members of said
category.
>If someone wants to worship his toaster it has zero effect on me.
>(Or You or Nicholas or Charles, I am sure! )
No it certainly doesn't, but that doesn't mean that I need to grant that
his toaster *is* a god. It may well be a god to him, but my atheism is
only relevant to my understanding of what a god is or isn't. The fact
that someone wants to call a toaster a god no more creates a god than if
someone wanted to declare that a goat with a fused horn was a unicorn (as
Barnum & Bailey Circuses did) in order to prove the existence of real
unicorns.
Of course, one of the things that really irritates me about Mr.
Fitterman's position is his consistent misidentification of what is being
worshipped.
He points to idols and insists that they are gods because people worship
them as gods. Putting aside the question of whether idol worshippers
actually think that their idols are gods, or merely representations of
gods, any that would say that an idol is a god is *not* merely referring
to an inert lump of metal, but a metal that is imbued with a supernatural
presence. Because of this, I do not give credence to the assignment of
the term.
He points to the planets and insist that they are also gods for the same
reason, ignoring the fact that the ancients did *not* realize that they
were large hunks of earth and sundrey elements, instead imagining them to
be the literal deities of their mythology and, hence, simply wrong.
He points to emperor worship (with particular emphasis on Caligula), never
addressing the question of whether it was simply an empty title or whether
those who worshipped Caligula as a god (and I doubt that very many did
with any sincerity) because they actually thought that he had divine
powers. If the former, it's no more meaningful than if Caligula named
himself Imperial Unicorn, if the latter, I have every reason to believe
that the designation was in error because I don't accept that the person
identified as a god as the abilities that have been assigned to it.
>If someone says "my toaster is a god"
>You can say "No it isnt!" he can say "yes it is!"... (ad infinitum)
>
>*I* say "I dont care!"
>What are they going to say? "yes you do!"?
>Hardly!
I can say that I don't find his description of his toaster to be
meaningful and that I don't accept that it is a god is any sense of the
term that I recognize. Is he going to tell me that I *do* recognize it?
>If someone wants to call his toaster "a frog" we are on solid ground
>saying "No it isnt" because there is a list of properties defining
>"frog" that you can get pretty near universal agreement on.
>Trying to get agreement about what God is from two differnt christians
>is near impossible, let alone a christian and a hindu for example.
I am not so pessemistic. I certainly think that there are minimal
qualifying properties that must be present, at least in majority, for term
to be meaningful. Certainly we can put such qualities as having a will,
having power above and beyond the ordinary scheme of things, having access
to information not available through ordinary means, being ontologically
distinct from the mundane order, and so forth. I grant that there will
always be borderline cases that defy easy categorization, but just because
the boundary between gods and non-gods is a fuzzy one, that doesn't mean
that there isn't one nor that there aren't things that definitely fall to
one side or the other of the boundary.
>And ...
>I dont think it is the job of atheists to tell theists what are and
>what are not gods.
>Let them do some bloody work!
It's certainly up to the theists to define their own gods, but I don't see
that to allow that is to abrogate my right to accept whether or not I
consider their definitions to be meaningful or applicable to my atheism.
I will continue to insist that anyone who wants to call their mundane
toaster a god is simply not using the term in a way that I choose to
recognize as valid.
Nicholas Wren
Richardson) wrote:
>On Sat, 15 Jan 2000 17:48:29 GMT, -ng...@gvtc.com- (Nicholas Wren)
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 15 Jan 2000 06:22:06 GMT, Mark Richardson
>><m.rich...@utas.edu.au> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 14 Jan 2000 16:23:12 GMT, -ng...@gvtc.com- (Nicholas Wren)
>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>I call myself an atheist with respect to my understanding of what a
>>>>god is. If someone wishes to call me a theist with respect to some
>>>>trivial god, then it doesn't bother me to be a theist in that trivial
>>>>sense. It's got nothing to do with me or what I think.
>>>>
>>>That is actually very close to the spirit of what Charles is saying.
>>
>>It may be similar from his perspective, but it isn't from mine. I
>>consider the terms theism and atheism both complementary and mutually
>>exclusive, whereas Charles considers them neither.
>
>I thought you had argued, quite well that they are complementary and
>exclusive - given a particular god.
>That the words atheist and theist only make sense in a context of a
>particular god.
If your point is that I'm disagreeing with myself, I don't see that I
am. If a person believes in the existence of a god, then I would say
that person is a theist and not an atheist with respect to that
particular god. If I understand Charles correctly, he would say that
person is a theist but he could *also* be an atheist with respect to
that god. (where the belief is deliberately not accompanied by
worship)
If a reasoning person lacks belief in the existence of a particular
god, then I would say that person is an atheist and not a theist with
respect to that god, whereas Charles would agree that person is not a
theist but would say he might also not be an atheist. (where the
absence of worship was not deliberate.)
If your point is that I too have used the atheist label in an
unorthodox way, I agree. I don't have a problem with unconventional
usage per se and I know that every such attempt tends to trade one set
of problems for another. I just think the modifications need to have
the net effect of reducing ambiguity and confusion. It may be that
Charles' usage can accomplish that, but I don't see it just yet.
>> If someone calls
>>Charles a theist, he can agree and yet maintain that he is an atheist.
>Not quite.
>If someone says x is God or a god Charles can agree and yet remain an
>atheist.
>Important difference there.
For there to be a difference, Charles would have to be of the opinion
that you could believe in the existence of a god, and yet not be a
theist. I may have missed that part. Is he proposing we change the
definition of theism too? Given what he is trying to do with the
atheism label, I can see the utility of that if he redefines theism to
mean "worship of a god". That would give the two terms better
symmetry than if he left the definition of theism alone.
>>>If someone said I was worshiping a toaster because I acknowledge its
>>>existence I would simply laugh at them.
>>
>>As presumably you would if that person said their toaster was a god.
>
>You see the problem is I don't believe it is the atheist job to go
>around telling theists that their god is "not a proper god".
By Charles' definition of atheism that is correct. In my conception
of atheism, I don't have to dictate to others, but I do have to have a
conception of what a particular god is before I can call myself an
atheist with regard to it, because with respect to undefined gods, my
position also has to be undefined. (ie. I can't tell you whether I
believe in it until I know what it is.)
Charles *might* not have to arrive at a conception of what a
particular god is to know he is an atheist with respect to it because
he doesn't have to know whether or not he believes in its existence.
Non-worship can occur in both states of belief or non-belief, so all
he would have to know is that he deliberately does not worship it (how
it can be deliberate when you don't know what you are withholding
worship from is something I don't understand, but I don't know that
it's impossible so I'll grant it for now)--but he would still have to
arrive at some conception of what constitutes worship. So he and I
have similar problems but in different areas. I have to have a
conception of what a given god is before I can categorize myself with
respect to it, and he has to decide what qualifies as worship.
>The atheist is saying I don't believe in your god or any god.
The Fiterman atheist can say "I believe in the existence of your god,
and I grant that it is indeed a god, and I even acknowledge that it
has some power over me, but I don't worship it."
>>My point was that if you can grant legitimacy to trivial gods, then it
>>seems like you'd have to grant similar legitimacy to trivial forms of
>>worship, which would erode the usefulness of the definition of atheism
>>Charles is trying to advance.
>>
>Let us see if this helps...
>I think we are looking at a categorical definition verses a
>operational definition.
>
>If we categorize a hammer by listing a set of specifications that an
>object must meet before we can call it a hammer then certain objects
>are never going to be hammers.
>However if you find a loose nail you can take off your boot
>(Looking around carefully to make sure the "hammer police" are not
>watching) and bash in the nail.
>An operational definition of hammer is something I use to drive nails.
>Then a hammer *can be* your boot, or a rock, or a bible.
>
>Same thing here except it is far more difficult to even come up with a
>list of attributes that make a god a god.
>
>A hammer is something with which to drive nails.
>It doesn't have to be made of wood and steel and have a limited range
>of shape and dimension.
>
>A god is something the believer "wants" to be a god.
Well, I'm not sure how that resolves the matter of trivial forms of
worship, but it does raise questions of its own. Say a man completely
believes in the existence of God as described in the Bible, and he
dutifully performs his acts of worship, but he wishes this God being
were not a god at all. Would that make this God not a god? And would
that man be a Fiterman atheist? (I'm just trying to figure out how
this all fits together.)
>Well I do believe in the existence of the Pharaohs of egypt.
>So I guess I *must* be a theist.
>Yet I don't *feel* like a theist.
>What is the solution?
>
>Your solution is apparently to say "The pharaoh is not a proper god"?
>Yet..
>He has temples built to him, sacrifices offered, priests who venerate
>him...
>Why is he not a god?
Yes, I do not consider myself a theist with respect to Pharaoh,
because I do not consider him a proper god. But one who believes in
the divine power of Pharaoh would probably also not consider me a
theist, because I merely believe in Pharaoh as a man. However, if
there were people who considered Pharaoh a god because of his earthly
powers, even knowing he was merely a man, then by their definition of
what constitutes of god, they would be able to categorize me as a
theist even if I don't consider myself one. So basically, my solution
is relativism. They can call me what they like, but I don't have to
agree.
You have the same situation with Fiterman atheism. If Sinister says
you are worshipping your toaster when you put bread in it, then you
have to choose. Either you take the absolutist stand that that does
not constitute "proper" worship, or you take the relativist position
and grant that for Sinister, this may indeed qualify as worship, even
though you do not consider it such yourself.
>I don't tell theists what god is - I ask and listen.
>I don't think it is my job to tell theists what god is and is not.
>I leave that up to them entirely.
>It is their god after all, not mine.
Obvious question, do you leave it up to them entirely to decide
whether or not you are an atheist? To the degree you define yourself
an atheist, the conception of the god you do not believe in is now
your own, even if it originated with someone else.
>>I wouldn't say completely compatible. A person who has never heard of
>>a god does not 'believe' in a god in either sense of the word. Most
>>people in this group would consider that an atheist, whereas Charles
>>would not.
>A new born doesnt believe in a god OR believe in the existence of a
>god.
>So I dont think this is a particular problem.
In the case of the newborn, there probably would be widespread
agreement that it should not be considered an atheist because it is
not known whether it even has a capacity for belief. In the case of
an adult raised in a culture without gods, most in this group would
say the godlessness of that individual would be enough to qualify as
atheism, whereas he would not be a Fiterman atheist if he made no
principled decision not to worship any god.
>> Charles also says that a person who believes in the
>>existence of a god can be an atheist, whereas most people in this
>>group would disagree.
>>
>I cannot deny the clear evidence that Pharaoh or the Inca existed.
>I cannot deny the clear evidence that they were worshiped as gods.
>To do either seems slightly insane.
So you believe they existed and that they were worshipped as gods.
Does that necessarily mean you believe they actually were gods?
>To deny that they were "real" gods is equally problematical, as it
>seems to imply I have a "real" god to compare them to.
>I don't - I am an atheist!
>I can compare them to other, different, conceptions of god but that is
>all.
To categorize anything, we compare it to conceptions, some of which
are abstracted from actual things, and some of which are not. I can
say a pot-bellied pig is not a unicorn without having a "real" unicorn
to compare it to.
>>If you can have silly worship, surely you can also have silly gods.
>
>It is my opinion that all gods are equally silly.
>
>The silly - ness of the worshipers is highly variable, but the idea
>that some religions are "primitive" and some are "enlightened" is
>(almost always? invariably?)sheer hubris - the arrogance of the
>dominant culture. (ethnocenticity)
The dominant religion in my culture (U.S.) is Christianity. It
completely overwhelms deism, which I find eminently more reasonable.
In fact, I would even consider it the Christian god sillier than the
gods of the Norse sagas or the Greek pantheon. At least they did not
embody impossibly contradictory attributes.
>You seem to have bought into the myth of the superiority of certain
>conceptions of God over others.
You call it a myth, I call it an opinion. I definitely consider some
god conceptions superior to others, even though I presently lack
reason to believe in any of them. However, I do deny the charge of
ethnocentrism. The god I grew up with gets a very low ranking on my
scale.
Nick
Charles Fiterman
There are some philosophical terms that are easy to confuse because modern
American atheists tend to be all at once. Two hundred years ago few people
were all at once and maybe in two hundred years the combination will be rare
again.
Skepticism comes from the skeptic school of philosophy founded by Pyrro
after he got home from following Alexander. It claims that nothing is
certain. After Pascal invented mathematical probability notions of
probability entered philosophy. Modern skeptics will generally agree that
extreme certainty is a sign of error if not madness.
Materialism is the belief that the physical world is all there is. Modern
materialism claims the methods of science are the only source of knowledge.
Materialism starts with Anaxagorus who said "Everything has a natural
explanation." Anaxagorus was the earliest historical person clearly
identifiable as an atheist.
Classical atheism comes from a (without) theos (gods) and referred to people
who did not serve or worship gods or spirits. Ancient atheists were rarely
skeptic, they were as sure as modern fundamentalists. Suetonius said "If, at
age five, you did not know the gods are made up things and the myths
impossible tales you are a fool." Lucretius said "If God can do anything he
can make a stone so heavy even he can't lift it. Therefore God does not
exist." But the dividing line was not serving or worshiping. Buddhists,
Taoists and Epicureans are atheist but not skeptic or materialist.
Anti religion seems to start from Epicurus who dedicated himself to exposing
the various confidence games played by priests. The outrageously high
percentage of child molesters among priests is not only an argument against
religion its at least five very powerful arguments against religion.
If God is so great why can't he find better servants?
If religion makes people better why are priests so bad. Atheists
are the lowest crime people in society with the lowest divorce
rates etc.
Why should we promote an institution that brings such vicious
people into the community and gives them money?
What of people are we setting up as examples to our children?
Why let these gangsters speak for us to politicians?
I can't imagine a better argument against religion than that.
Of these only atheism, having enough backbone not to grovel before, seems so
important that I would give it as an answer when asked for my religion.
Charles Fiterman
Nicholas Wren wrote:
>
> >You see the problem is I don't believe it is the atheist job to go
> >around telling theists that their god is "not a proper god".
>
> By Charles' definition of atheism that is correct. In my conception
> of atheism, I don't have to dictate to others, but I do have to have a
> conception of what a particular god is before I can call myself an
> atheist with regard to it, because with respect to undefined gods, my
> position also has to be undefined. (ie. I can't tell you whether I
> believe in it until I know what it is.)
For starters I'll define theists as those lacking atheism. Atheism being the
backbone not to grovel before gods. This matches common usage, people who
admit the existence of gods but refuse them worship.
Charles Fiterman
> >Any definition of God or god anyone can come up with has exceptions.
> >So to me, god is whatever the believer says it is.
>
> Well, I can agree that the definition is slippery without having to go so
> far as to accept that it's *whatever* the believer says it is. There's a
> lot of terms and concepts in the world that defy specific definition while
> still allowing us to agree that some things aren't members of said
> category.
But that's the only non slippery definition and the only definition compatible
with our notions of religious freedom. Any other definition implies the ability
to tell people "Your god isn't a real god because it doesn't resemble the ones
I grew up with."
> Of course, one of the things that really irritates me about Mr.
> Fitterman's position is his consistent misidentification of what is being
> worshipped.
I come from a mixed family and as I child I was exposed to reform Judaism, the
Roman Catholic church and native American traditional religion (Pima). So I
have a very clear notion of religions with physically observable gods and
exactly what is being worshiped.
Our disagreement comes from my having a clear notion based on experience while
you are trying to imagine something close to the religions you were brought up
in. As a child a Pima Shaman explained "These things (earth, sun, wind and sky)
are gods in the traditional religion of our people. We respect that tradition."
If you can find a false belief somewhere in that I'd like to know about it. If
you can find those things standing in for some spirit please point it out to
me. These are absolutely non anthropomorphic gods that can be observed. Being
absolutely non anthropomorphic is part of the religion just as in the
description of Allah in Islam. Part of being non anthromorphic can be not
having a mind. Every religion doesn't have to look like the First Unitarian
Church of Evanston with a few different names thrown in.
As to idols being gods or representing them it depends on the idol, the
worshiper and the context. People really do worship small statues.
A few years ago my wife, a Korean, and I took some Korean friends on a trip to
Mexico. They saw the colorful pictures of the Corrida and wanted to go. I was
astounded that these educated, cultured people wanted to see a bull fight but
Sunday afternoon I herded them on the Metro and we went to the bullfight. They
were horrified. Animals were being brutally tortured to death before a cheering
crowd. They were sure that what ever happened in a bullfight it had to be
something else and wanted to know what it was. After all this was a
cosmopolitan city full of educated people and there wasn't one protester in
front of the arena. Their opinion was logical but utterly wrong.
You are very sure people don't actually worship physical objects. Your beliefs
are logical but utterly wrong.
Also because I was brought up around religions with observable gods I must
define atheism in a way that includes them. Also I don't want to say one
religion is superior to another.
Charles Fiterman
George Ricker wrote:
> An entity, be it a being or an object, is identified as a "god" by those
> who worship it because they believe it has certain attributes that will
> benefit them or will keep them from harm if they worship it. Most commonly
> that attribute is a supernatural power that (a) will be used to their
> advantage if they worship it or (b) will be used against them if they fail
> to propitiate it.
What if they believe that worshiping it will help them keep their culture alive
because the worship is a traditional part of the culture?
This belief is common and true.
Andrew Lias
Charles Fiterman <c...@geodesic.com> wrote:
>Andrew Lias wrote:
>
>> >Any definition of God or god anyone can come up with has exceptions.
>> >So to me, god is whatever the believer says it is.
>>
>> Well, I can agree that the definition is slippery without having to go so
>> far as to accept that it's *whatever* the believer says it is. There's a
>> lot of terms and concepts in the world that defy specific definition while
>> still allowing us to agree that some things aren't members of said
>> category.
>
>with our notions of religious freedom. Any other definition implies the ability
>to tell people "Your god isn't a real god because it doesn't resemble the ones
>I grew up with."
No Charles, not again.
You and I have exchanged more than enough words to fully appreciate and
reject one anothers positions for whatever reasons. By now you should
know my replies, I should know your replies, and so forth through
innumerable iterations of counter-reply. It grows tedious. Certainly I
have seen *this* argument enough times and have responded to it enough
times. We might as well be reading off a script.
I am willing to discuss this matter with Richard precisely because his own
perspective on the matter is, of necessity, a novel one. I.E, there's a
reasonable chance that he'll say something unexpected and different.
But you and I? We should know better. I don't need to ride a
merry-go-round fifty times to know that it always ends up coming around to
the same spot and neither should you.
Bruce
Charles Fiterman wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
>
> If religion makes people better why are priests so bad. Atheists
> are the lowest crime people in society with the lowest divorce
> rates etc.
> <snip>
As I recall, marriage IS a religious institution--no wonder atheists have a
lower divorce rate. While I realize marriage has become a political tool to
enhance the population of future consumers, I wonder how atheists handle the
supplications to a gawd in which they don't believe--as I recall it's a facet of
even civil ceremonies (not that I've been to all that many weddings, nor paid
attention to what was said during the few I've attended, since few people
believe it or practice it anyway.)
Bruce
Victor Danilchenko
>
> Charles Fiterman wrote:
>
> > If religion makes people better why are priests so bad. Atheists
> > are the lowest crime people in society with the lowest divorce
> > rates etc.
>
> lower divorce rate. While I realize marriage has become a political tool to
> enhance the population of future consumers, I wonder how atheists handle the
> supplications to a gawd in which they don't believe--as I recall it's a facet of
> even civil ceremonies
It's not -- not in NY state, at least, where my wife and I got our civil
ceremony. No mention of god at all.
> (not that I've been to all that many weddings, nor paid
> attention to what was said during the few I've attended, since few people
> believe it or practice it anyway.)
--
Victor Danilchenko
alt.atheist 696
Bruce
background and I have the feeling that people are disagreeing where there is
no disagreement. Performing ethnic or traditional rituals for the sake of
posterity is neither religious nor
non-religious (theist nor athiest). It merely consists of performing a
ritual somewhat comparable to the practices of well known associations of
clubs that emply such formalities such as Eastern Star, Elks, Masons, etc.
While they have included some sort of religious incantations in their
rituals, it seems obvious to me that the important part of the ritual is
performing it, not its content. Charles' position appears to me to be the
same: maintaining the culture while not adhering, necessarily, to its
originators' fervid religious attitude.
We all do ritualization in varying degrees due to environmental training.
It's a way we know to conduct our daily lives, not a way to obtain divine
favor.
Bruce
Nicholas Wren wrote:
<snip>
Nicholas Wren
<c...@geodesic.com> wrote:
<...>
>For starters I'll define theists as those lacking atheism. Atheism being the
>backbone not to grovel before gods. This matches common usage, people who
>admit the existence of gods but refuse them worship.
So you have a novel definition of theism as well. Whatever merit your
scheme may have, my experience is that this does not match common
usage as much as the standard definitions.
Someone who believes in God; who considers him a close personal
friend; and who worships in the sense of love, devotion, and
admiration would not be an atheist to most people, even though he is
not groveling.
I consider myself an atheist, but if a truly horrific god appeared and
ordered me to grovel or he would obliterate humanity, you can bet
money I'd be nose-in-the-dirt, groveling with the lowest of the low.
I'm also unclear on what someone who had never heard of a god would
be. Would a propensity to grovel make that person a theist even
before he found himself in a situation where grovelling was called
for? Would having a low inclination to grovel make that person an
atheist even though at no point was there a conscious and principled
decision not to grovel?
Nick
Mark Richardson
wrote:
No. Not really.
Pharaohs are as "gody" as any god.
He was a man, but so was Jesus.
So was Hercules.
So was Krishna.
Being a human doesn't seem to be a hinderance to godhood for a great
number of gods.
Do I believe any of them have supernatural powers?
No.
If you are saying "I don't believe Pharoah had supernatural powers"
then I agree.
>> But is he *my* god?
>> No, he is someone elses god.
>>
>> What's the problem?
>
>The problem is that there is a world of difference between recognizing
>that there are real entities that are called "god" by some people and
>believing that those entities actually are gods.
>
Here is the problem.
I am an atheist.
I don't have a "real" god to compare all the "false gods" to.
I say "I don't believe in gods."
I mean all gods. Not just the ones *I* want to call god, but all of
them.
I don't want to call anything a god, other people do.
What is the difference between a man who is called a god and a man who
is not called a god?
I would say "nothing".
So why should I be frightened and threatened by a word?
A label that has no meaning?
Calling something god actually doesn't say anything about the "thing"
at all. It merely says there is a relationship between the thing and
the worshiper.
>> You are an atheist yet somehow you *know* what a real, true or proper
>> god is??!!
>
>I "know" that I don't believe in god(s). I don't believe in god(s) called
>Jesus, Yahweh, Vishnu, Allah, Thor, Zeus, Jove, Neptune, Coyote, Pharoah
>or the little stone idol in the middle of some village somewhere. I don't
>believe in any gods.
>
That is my stance exactly!
I don't believe in any gods, even the ones that are made of atoms.
Being made of atoms is really not that special.
Lots of things are made of atoms.
>> What is a "true" god like?
>> Care to point out an example?
>> 8-)
>
>An entity, be it a being or an object, is identified as a "god" by those
>who worship it because they believe it has certain attributes that will
>benefit them or will keep them from harm if they worship it. Most commonly
>that attribute is a supernatural power that (a) will be used to their
>advantage if they worship it or (b) will be used against them if they fail
>to propitiate it.
>
There are christian theologians that say that the story of the virgin
birth is false, that the story of the miracles are false, and even
that the resurrection did not actually occur.
Yet they say that Jesus was divine.
He didn't do conjuring tricks but he was divine.
Are they atheists?
>Indeed, if you look in most dictionaries, one of their definitions of
>"god" (lower case, not upper case) is precisely that. Here's an example
>from Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary: "a being or object
>believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require
>man's worship." It seems to me that's a pretty good description of what
>most people mean when they refer to gods. It leaves room for the gods
>worshipped by both major and minor religions. It includes both upper- and
>lower-case gods.
>
It is a good definition but it doesn't cover all gods.
>Now let's also recognizes that there are colloquial uses of the word "god"
>that extend its meaning beyond the religious context. A being or object
>that is of supreme value to someone might be said to be that person's god,
>as in "Money is his god." That's not what I'm talking about here, and I
>don't think it's what Charles is talking about either. We all recognize
>that, in that context, gods exist. But that context is highyly
>idiosyncratic and might include virtually anything. It has nothing to do
>with either theism or atheism.
>
Sure, that is just using a word for rhetorical effect.
It is using god as a metaphor.
Like football commentators that call big wins by one team over another
a massacre.
They don't literally mean that one team has been violently killed by
the other.
I am not arguing for this.
>I have absolutely no problem with anyone worshipping anything and calling
>it a god, be it a juniper bush, a little stone idol, the sun, some
>emporer, or an archetype preserved from ancient mythology.
>
My point exactly.
>I do have a problem with Charles' insistence that because someone else
>identifies something as a deity I am obliged to concur. I don't believe in
>deities of any sort. Other people are free to believe they exist and to
>worship them or not as they choose. I don't believe godhood exists except
>in the minds of the true believers who choose to confer it on some object
>or being.
>
You se, I still cannot understand what is so scary about the word
"god".
It has no power over me.
If someone says "this statue is my god."
I might say "really, why?" or "that is interesting - what does it do
for you." or ....
I definitely do not say "No it isn't!"
>> Let me guess! It is a lot like the god of St Thomas Aquinas and his
>> mates, right?
>
>Obviously you guessed wrong.
>
Perhaps. 8-)
>> Oh brother! Have you allowed "the church" to dictate terms or what!
>> Away with that bullshit!
>> I don't let that particular multinational cartel tell me what I can
>> and cannot think, thank you very much!
>>
>> The very idea makes my skin crawl!
>
>I quite agree with you. I also try very hard not to assume that I know
>what someone else is thinking before they have an opportunity to tell me.
>
>Now ... you were saying?
>
Sorry, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth but
I get frustrated that I cant get my message across.
Perhaps we shall have to agree to dissagree.
George Ricker
m.rich...@utas.edu.au (Mark Richardson) wrote:
<SNIP> Previous comments to save space
> You se, I still cannot understand what is so scary about the word
> "god".
> It has no power over me.
>
> If someone says "this statue is my god."
> I might say "really, why?" or "that is interesting - what does it do
> for you." or ....
> I definitely do not say "No it isn't!"
Nor do I. I don't believe in gods. I don't care what other people think
about the objects or beings they call "gods." I don't find anything scary
about the word at all. However, the entities other people worship as
"gods" are not gods as far as I'm concerned.
I really don't think you and I are that far apart. My sole objection in
this discussion is with Charles Fiterman's insistence that, as atheists,
we should recognize other people's gods as gods and simply say we don't
worship them. I take the position that the description of an atheist as
one who does not believe in god(s) is perfectly adequate, requires no
additional tweaking, and is a more accurate reflection of common usage
than his.
> >> Let me guess! It is a lot like the god of St Thomas Aquinas and his
> >> mates, right?
> >
> >Obviously you guessed wrong.
> >
> Perhaps. 8-)
>
> >> Oh brother! Have you allowed "the church" to dictate terms or what!
> >> Away with that bullshit!
> >> I don't let that particular multinational cartel tell me what I can
> >> and cannot think, thank you very much!
> >>
> >> The very idea makes my skin crawl!
> >
> >I quite agree with you. I also try very hard not to assume that I know
> >what someone else is thinking before they have an opportunity to tell me.
> >
> >Now ... you were saying?
> >
> Sorry, I didn't mean to put words in your mouth but
> I get frustrated that I cant get my message across.
>
> Perhaps we shall have to agree to dissagree.
Certainly ... that's always an option. But again, I don't think we're
really in that much disagreement.
George Ricker
> George Ricker wrote:
>
> > An entity, be it a being or an object, is identified as a "god" by those
> > who worship it because they believe it has certain attributes that will
> > benefit them or will keep them from harm if they worship it. Most commonly
> > that attribute is a supernatural power that (a) will be used to their
> > advantage if they worship it or (b) will be used against them if they fail
> > to propitiate it.
>
> What if they believe that worshiping it will help them keep their
culture alive
> because the worship is a traditional part of the culture?
>
> This belief is common and true.
Then the benefit would be the preservation of their culture. The belief
may be "common." Whether or not it is "true" is another matter entirely.
In such circumstances, I suppose this entity will be identified as a "god"
to them. It still won't be a god to me. I don't believe in gods. I'm an
atheist.
However, it's important to recognize that in such cases, it's not usually
the deity that's thought to be important to preserving the culture but the
religion and the rituals of worship that have formed around the belief in
the deity.
But again, I don't much care "why" someone else believes in a god. I'm
simply making the point that what someone else believes imposes no
obligation on me to recognize it as valid. You seem to take the position
that because other people worship beings or objects as god(s), then god(s)
exist. I take the position that god(s) don't exist.
Charles Fiterman
Mark Richardson wrote:
> What is the difference between a man who is called a god and a man who
> is not called a god?
> I would say "nothing".
> So why should I be frightened and threatened by a word?
> A label that has no meaning?
The difference is well documented. The support of armed thugs.
When Caligula declared his divinity the head of the guard announced it ending with
"Many will doubt it for it is man's nature to doubt. But if any deny it the more
fool he." The Senate got the message and unanimously declared Caligula a god. The
armed thugs created the combination of greed and terror described in Pascal's wager.
When the armed thugs came to fear Caligula might turn on them they killed him.
This does not change the sincerity of the worship? Caligula was deeply loved and
revered by the people for all his faults. If you want to see the emotional tone of
emperor worship pick up the movie Evita. Old women went on bleeding knees to the
temple of Caligula in prayer.
Jesus is a god for the same reason. His magic tricks were mediocre for the time. The
only witnesses to the good tricks like walking on water were his shills. I know how
that is done. Mostly he did things like having a shill pull a coin from a fish's
mouth. Healing cripples and raising the dead you could watch three shows a day at
the Agora. His philosophy was poor compared to Socrates or Epicurus.
But a succession of armed thugs supported his worship. Constantine, Justinian,
Tourquemada, Cortez, Dominic. He is worshiped because of those armed thugs.
Magic tricks are unimportant. Nobody worships Houdini. Creating the universe is
unimportant. Nobody worships the big bang. The key to divinity is armed thugs.
Charles Fiterman
Bruce wrote:
> Charles Fiterman wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > If religion makes people better why are priests so bad. Atheists
> > are the lowest crime people in society with the lowest divorce
> > rates etc.
> > <snip>
>
> As I recall, marriage IS a religious institution--no wonder atheists have a
> lower divorce rate. While I realize marriage has become a political tool to
> enhance the population of future consumers, I wonder how atheists handle the
> supplications to a gawd in which they don't believe--as I recall it's a facet of
> even civil ceremonies (not that I've been to all that many weddings, nor paid
> attention to what was said during the few I've attended, since few people
> believe it or practice it anyway.)
The rate is measured from married people. Marriage is a biological institution. We
see it in other species. The most common explanation is that its a firewall against
sexually transmitted diseases.
lynx
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, 17 Jan 2000 12:48:14 -0800, Bruce <stu...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>While I realize marriage has become a political tool to enhance the
>population of future consumers, I wonder how atheists handle the
>supplications to a gawd in which they don't believe--as I recall it's a
>facet of even civil ceremonies (not that I've been to all that many
>weddings, nor paid attention to what was said during the few I've
>attended, since few people believe it or practice it anyway.)
now that i'm trying to remember it, i really can't recall if it was any
part of the civil ceremony i had. i suspect it wasn't, i would've
remembered such a thing if it'd been there, but then i'm happy to live
well away from the bible belt.
what i *do* remember is the traditional wedding vows - for better and
worse, richer and poorer, in sickness and health, and so on. i was kinda
suspecting at the time that those were just an old relic that wasn't
really all that necessary anymore - oh boy, was _i_ ever proved wrong on
_that_!
- --
PGP/GnuPG key (ID 1024D/BFE0D6D0) available from keyservers everywhere
"I've lived too long with pain. I won't know who I am without it."
-- _Ender's Game_, Orson Scott Card
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.0 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE4hIjBNfZCE7/g1tARAuEeAKDEhzTV8XeJY7j0dlwl6uVZRbdgOQCgxsf2
UUN2H1zFse6fn01KsMXn+XY=
=mub+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Mark Richardson
wrote:
Belief is personal.
A theist believes in the existence of a god.
That statement contains two statements.
(1) A theist believes "something" exists.
(2) A theist calls that "something" god.
You can be an atheist by :
(1) Thinking that particular "something" does not exist.
Or
(2) Not calling that "something" god.
(1) Is fine - we can argue that some gods are pure creations of the
imagination.
(2) Is problematical.
God is a word that can mean many different (often mutually exclusive)
things.
What you are *really* saying is "something" is not a god to me.
So I can believe in the existence of something that somebody (perhaps
millions of somebodies) calls a god and yet it is not my god, it is
their god.
> If I understand Charles correctly, he would say that
>person is a theist but he could *also* be an atheist with respect to
>that god. (where the belief is deliberately not accompanied by
>worship)
I dont think so.
I think he is saying it is *a* god, but not my god, therefore he is
still an atheist.
> If a reasoning person lacks belief in the existence of a particular
>god, then I would say that person is an atheist and not a theist with
>respect to that god,
I agree.
> whereas Charles would agree that person is not a
>theist but would say he might also not be an atheist. (where the
>absence of worship was not deliberate.)
>
I am not sure.
>If your point is that I too have used the atheist label in an
>unorthodox way, I agree. I don't have a problem with unconventional
>usage per se and I know that every such attempt tends to trade one set
>of problems for another. I just think the modifications need to have
>the net effect of reducing ambiguity and confusion. It may be that
>Charles' usage can accomplish that, but I don't see it just yet.
>
The advantage of Charles idea (or my version of it.8-) ) is that you
can be an atheist with respect to any and all gods not just the subset
which you (or someone else) deems to allow to be called gods.
I am an atheist with respect to all gods including the ones that
exist.
>>> If someone calls
>>>Charles a theist, he can agree and yet maintain that he is an atheist.
>>Not quite.
>>If someone says x is God or a god Charles can agree and yet remain an
>>atheist.
>>Important difference there.
>
>For there to be a difference, Charles would have to be of the opinion
>that you could believe in the existence of a god, and yet not be a
>theist.
yes!
> I may have missed that part. Is he proposing we change the
>definition of theism too? Given what he is trying to do with the
>atheism label, I can see the utility of that if he redefines theism to
>mean "worship of a god". That would give the two terms better
>symmetry than if he left the definition of theism alone.
>
Sure.
The word believe has (at least) two meanings
A theist is someone who believes in a god.
NOT
A theist is someone who believes in the existence of god.
-----------------------------------
An illustration:
"Someone who believes in Hitler is a Nazi."
Is that a true statement? It depends!
"Someone who believes in the existence of Hitler is a Nazi."
How about that one? No, It is clearly false.
----------------------------------
People who believe in a god worship that god, they venerate it, they
focus their thoughts, their desires, their hopes, their faith or
trust, and often their fear, towards that god.
Do I believe in the sun?
No.
I do not venerate the sun.
I do not center my life around the sun.
I do not see the sun as the focus of all my thoughts, wishes and
hopes.
I DO NOT BELIEVE IN THE SUN.
That is a perfectly sane statement.
And yet it exists.
And I believe it exists.
To say "I do not believe in the existence of the sun" is clearly
insane and Charles does not want to make that insane statement.
I don't blame him.
<snip rest>
Mark Richardson
Lias) wrote:
I actually think something very similar to this but express it
differently.
We can say that the Inca or the Pharaoh or the sun is *a* god but not
*my* god.
A christian or muslim can, of course, also say this.
What makes me an atheist is that no god is my god.
If I am to call something my god it has to be both objectively real
and "worship" of such a thing has to be both positive and meaningfull.
The sun exists, but worshiping it would seem foolish to me.
Sacrificing goats to it, for example, would be both negative and
pointless.
So I do not make the sun *my* god.
One advantage of this is that we never get into the business of
denying other peoples culture.
Which seems to me to be rude and disrespectful.
It is true for them - that does not automatically make it true for you
or I.
God is a cultural phenomenon.
The other advantage is that we do not have to tie our atheism to any
particular meaning of the word "god".
Cheers, Mark.
<Snip>
PS I did read all of your post but my reply post has to be short.
I am busy!
Charles Fiterman
Mark Richardson wrote:
> If a reasoning person lacks belief in the existence of a particular
>god, then I would say that person is an atheist and not a theist with
>respect to that god,
> whereas Charles would agree that person is not a
>theist but would say he might also not be an atheist. (where the
>absence of worship was not deliberate.)
>
> I am not sure.
I'm not sure either. Common usage says being a couch potato doesn't make you
an automatic atheist. Taking a couch potato as someone who does not worship
gods or spirits because he never does much of anything.
There are so many gods I'm sure I don't know 1% of the names much less the
mythologies. I'm an atheist with respect to all gods. Getting a fuller list is
not a requirement. I don't collect god names and mythologies in hope that at
god 1,345,678 I will find the one true god and fall down to worship. I can't
prove that wont happen but it doesn't seem very likely.
> The advantage of Charles idea (or my version of it.8-) ) is that you
> can be an atheist with respect to any and all gods not just the subset
> which you (or someone else) deems to allow to be called gods.
>
> I am an atheist with respect to all gods including the ones that
> exist.
The first advantage of my idea is that I'm not telling people how to organize
their religions or what to expect of their gods. I don't claim to be Pope over
all religions. If someone wants to worship an insane politician with a retinue
of armed thugs they can. I admit his existence and divinity but as long as his
thugs can't get their hands on me I wont worship him.
The second advantage is it reflects common usage as to who is and is not an
atheist. The function of a definition is not to make a theological statement
but to reflect common usage. Its not to report on common definitions either.
You should be able to take a good definition of atheist and tell who is or is
not an atheist. It also doesn't have to reflect structure. Awful meant full of
awe in Beowulf but since then its changed. Atheist doesn't have to have any
relation to theist. When I said a theist was a person lacking atheism I was
mostly joking.
The third advantage is it does a good job of including those who would want to
be included and excluding those who want to be excluded. There is a lot to be
said of this property. It doesn't do a perfect job and I think its right here
also. My definition "An atheist is a person who from principal or belief does
not willingly worship gods or spirits." does not accept Stalin worshipers.
Stalin worshipers claim to be atheists. I know enough history to reject that
claim as deliberately dishonest. Like Jews for Jesus they are no such thing.
Ed. Stoebenau
>Perhaps I should have put it differently, but if one is making a claim
>that should in my eyes always be from knowledge and not from belief.
But what is knowledge than justified true belief? More importantly,
people do think that their beliefs are grounded (and of course true),
even if they actually are not, so I don't see how this affects
anything.
>So if you say "No gods exist" you're in my eyes not saying "the little
>evidence we humans have obtained on the nature of the universe
>reasonably leads me to believe that there are no gods", which can be
>justified, but "I have knowledge that no gods exist".
I would think I'd be saying that "No gods exist." Of course, there
might be some implicit qualifications, but these deal with metaphysics
(what qualifies as a god) rather than epistemology it would seem.
>If you claim the
>last, please present this knowledge.
If I were to claim that I would either defend it. However, like most
strong atheists, I am a narrow strong atheist, not a broad one.
--
Ed. Stoebenau
a#143