A rambling intro
kipp
kipp
flavours of atheism, can you point out any way in which a person who
lacks belief in gods behaves in any way differently from a person
who actively disbelieves in gods? <snip>
Niall #36
Hello Niall ... nice to meet you.
I don't think it a question of behavior but rather a technique of argumentation. The "absence of belief" technique limits the burden of proof to just he "believer." In my opinion many atheists fashioning this type of argument "believe there are no gods" and would do well to investigate and rationally justify their own belief ... the very same burden they require of their adversary.
So Niall, what rational basis do have for believing there are no gods?
Regards,
kipp
Niall McAuley
kipp <k...@bibbs.com> wrote in message
news:NKpf5.12797$G7.3...@news-west.usenetserver.com...
>New to the newsgroup ... Greetings folks.
Hi kipp.
>In this newsgroup as well as many other atheist writings, I find atheists
constantly
>intimating a position of "absence or lack of belief in order to burden
theists with
>providing a rational justification. Although the position appears
philosophically
>sound at first glance, I think it quite disingenuous.
Apparently not. I'm a strong atheist, meaning that like yourself
I believe no gods really exist, but there are lots of atheists
here in the group who do *not* believe that, and are not lying.
>It is my opinion that the vast majority of atheists worth their
>salt believe as I do
To empirically justify this claim about the worth of the different
flavours of atheism, can you point out any way in which a person who
lacks belief in gods behaves in any way differently from a person
who actively disbelieves in gods?
This is a storm in a teacup: I've seen this semantic argument on and
off for seven years here: compared to all the theists opinions out
there the atheists beliefs are so similar that creating strong and
weak categories is hair splitting, and arguing about it is silly.
--
Niall #36 [real address ends in net, not ten.invalid]
Christopher A. Lee
Niall McAuley <gnmc...@eircom.ten.invalid> wrote:
>
>kipp <k...@bibbs.com> wrote in message
>news:NKpf5.12797$G7.3...@news-west.usenetserver.com...
>>New to the newsgroup ... Greetings folks.
>
>Hi kipp.
>
>>In this newsgroup as well as many other atheist writings, I
>>find atheists constantly intimating a position of "absence or
>>lack of belief in order to burden theists with providing a
>>rational justification. Although the position appears
>>philosophically sound at first glance, I think it quite
>>disingenuous.
>
>Apparently not. I'm a strong atheist, meaning that like yourself
>I believe no gods really exist, but there are lots of atheists
>here in the group who do *not* believe that, and are not lying.
"Believe in not" is an action to be performed. Which most
atheists don't do - in fact weak atheists are more numerous
than strong atheists. We're simply not theist - for whatever
reason. And this says nothing else about us.
Generalisation alert.... Strong atheists tend to be ex-theists.
But even most ex-theists tend to see it as "something they
stopped believing in".
But theists have the biurden of supporting their assertions
to both strong and weak atheists, because they are the ones
making the claim. And of course "there's no God" is no different
than "there ain't no Santa Claus".
I for one was never any kind of theist even as a child. One
day I realised that some people believe something I don't. So
I view it in cultural or even anthropological terms "these guys
believe this". Which is all it can be to me. Deity isn't even
part of me in such a form as to believe it exists, or to believe
it doesn't exist - and certainly not to be agnostic about it
either. All of those assume that it is as important to me in
the negative sense as it is in the positive sense to theists,
when it has no relevence or importance to me at all.
>>It is my opinion that the vast majority of atheists worth their
>>salt believe as I do
>
>To empirically justify this claim about the worth of the different
>flavours of atheism, can you point out any way in which a person who
>lacks belief in gods behaves in any way differently from a person
>who actively disbelieves in gods?
>
>This is a storm in a teacup: I've seen this semantic argument on and
>off for seven years here: compared to all the theists opinions out
>there the atheists beliefs are so similar that creating strong and
>weak categories is hair splitting, and arguing about it is silly.
Unfortunately, you have be very careful how you use language around
believers - and it's the believers (with the occasional agnostic)
who tell me what my position is, getting it wrong. We all know what
"believe" means to them, and even a strong atheist's "believe God
doesn't exist" isn't that kind of belief.
apa...@trout.vub.ac.be
> In article <MXpf5.10390$r4....@news.indigo.ie>,
> Niall McAuley <gnmc...@eircom.ten.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>kipp <k...@bibbs.com> wrote in message
>>news:NKpf5.12797$G7.3...@news-west.usenetserver.com...
>>>New to the newsgroup ... Greetings folks.
>>
>>Hi kipp.
>>
>>>In this newsgroup as well as many other atheist writings, I
>>>find atheists constantly intimating a position of "absence or
>>>lack of belief in order to burden theists with providing a
>>>rational justification. Although the position appears
>>>philosophically sound at first glance, I think it quite
>>>disingenuous.
>>
>>Apparently not. I'm a strong atheist, meaning that like yourself
>>I believe no gods really exist, but there are lots of atheists
>>here in the group who do *not* believe that, and are not lying.
> "Believe in not" is an action to be performed. Which most
> atheists don't do - in fact weak atheists are more numerous
> than strong atheists. We're simply not theist - for whatever
> reason. And this says nothing else about us.
I don't know about other strong atheists, but this action of be-
lieving in not is for me very context specific. It really doesn't
play any part in my life, there is no action I did or decision I
made that depended on the fact that I assume god to not exist.
Most of the time the thought is so deep burried I might as well
not have it.
The only difference AFAICMO between me and a weak atheist is,
that at the moment that the context gets switched to include god-
talk I'm willing to go a step further and not only state: I don't
believe it; but will state: I believe it to be not true:
For the rest is my experience that the labels "strong" and "weak"
seem to suggest two coherent groups that are cleary distinghuis-
able which in my experiences they aren't. Personally I have
wresteled with the two concepts for over a year before finally
deciding the strong label was best fitted for me. I also know a
lot of weak atheists with position I sympathies for more than the
position of some strong atheists.
At a certain moment while thinking about the labeling and dis-
cussing with arturo his view it seemed weak atheism covered two
categories which could be seen as if on either side of strong
atheism.
As far as I'm concerned, the "weak" and "strong" labels give as
much rise to confusion as they clear things up and I'd rather
call my self just an atheist without any label. But if someone
like to put a label to me I think the "strong" one applies best
to me, however I can make a case for both label to be applicable
depending on how one thinks they should apply, of which I have
seem many different ideas here.
--
Antoon Pardon
Cynical Prophet
> New to the newsgroup ... Greetings folks.
Howdy and welcome.
> In this newsgroup as well as many other atheist
> writings, I find atheists constantly intimating a
> position of "absence or lack of belief in order to burden
> theists with providing a rational justification.
> Although the position appears philosophically sound at
> first glance, I think it quite disingenuous.
> It is my opinion that the vast majority of atheists
> worth their salt believe as I do ... that the
> proposition "gods exist" is false.
I think your opinion is without support in reality. Now,
you said that the stance "lack of belief" was "quite
disingenuous". Would you mind support that?
> So, my salty friends, on what rational grounds do you
> justify your belief that the proposition "God exists" is
> false?
We never claimed that. It's *your* strawman that we did.
> The former absence of belief enthusiast,
> kipp
Since you've just conceded that you actively believe
that "God don't exist", I can now ask you: On what rational
ground do you justify your belif?
Morgan
* Sent from AltaVista http://www.altavista.com Where you can also find related Web Pages, Images, Audios, Videos, News, and Shopping. Smart is Beautiful
Geoff Sheffield
chri...@netcom.com (Christopher A. Lee) wrote:
> In article <MXpf5.10390$r4....@news.indigo.ie>,
> Niall McAuley <gnmc...@eircom.ten.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >kipp <k...@bibbs.com> wrote in message
> >news:NKpf5.12797$G7.3...@news-west.usenetserver.com...
> >
> >
> >>In this newsgroup as well as many other atheist writings, I
> >>find atheists constantly intimating a position of "absence or
> >>lack of belief in order to burden theists with providing a
> >>rational justification. Although the position appears
> >>philosophically sound at first glance, I think it quite
> >>disingenuous.
> >
> >I believe no gods really exist, but there are lots of atheists
> >here in the group who do *not* believe that, and are not lying.
>
> "Believe in not" is an action to be performed. Which most
> atheists don't do - in fact weak atheists are more numerous
> than strong atheists. We're simply not theist - for whatever
> reason. And this says nothing else about us.
>
> But even most ex-theists tend to see it as "something they
> stopped believing in".
>
> But theists have the biurden of supporting their assertions
> to both strong and weak atheists, because they are the ones
> making the claim. And of course "there's no God" is no different
> than "there ain't no Santa Claus".
>
> I for one was never any kind of theist even as a child. One
> day I realised that some people believe something I don't. So
> I view it in cultural or even anthropological terms "these guys
> believe this". Which is all it can be to me. Deity isn't even
> part of me in such a form as to believe it exists, or to believe
> it doesn't exist - and certainly not to be agnostic about it
> either. All of those assume that it is as important to me in
> the negative sense as it is in the positive sense to theists,
> when it has no relevence or importance to me at all.
>
If we change the word "believe" to "have an opinion", does
that change your answer?
Is it your opinion that god does not exist?
If you don't have an opinion on this subject, why is that?
Clearly you have thought about it.
I have two opinions on this subject:
Opinion #1: God does not exist.
Opinion #2: There is no such thing as belief. Every time somebody
says they believe something, they really mean they have
an opinion about it.
[snip]
--
Geoff Sheffield
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Fear gan dia
Geoff Sheffield <geo...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> If we change the word "believe" to "have an opinion", does
> that change your answer?
>
> Is it your opinion that god does not exist?
>
> If you don't have an opinion on this subject, why is that?
> Clearly you have thought about it.
>
> I have two opinions on this subject:
>
> Opinion #1: God does not exist.
>
> Opinion #2: There is no such thing as belief. Every time somebody
> says they believe something, they really mean they have
> an opinion about it.
The reason confusion arises is that to religionists, "belief" in a
religious context means "accepting something in the absence of evidence
for it, or in the face of evidence to the contrary". To the god squad,
this is highly virtuous while to the rest of us it is merely foolish
gullibility.
Of course, all but the most frenzied jeezus junkies would say that in
other contexts, trusting strangers with your life savings for
example, gullibility is not such a good idea. It's when the god-prattle
starts up that the rules change. Atheists (should) refuse to be bound by
those rules, or to accept the religious definition of "belief".
For example, when I say I believe that no gods exist, that is not a
religious belief, in the sense of lacking any basis and being held
because it makes me feel virtuous. It follows from my hypothesis that
the universe is rational, and subject to physical laws which can at
least in principle be understood by humans. This hypothesis is in turn
based on experience and my knowledge of science.
--
Hugh D., Phoenix, The Arid Zone ### Delete god to email me.
Justice for *LEGAL* immigrants - support S.2586!
http://www.senate.gov/~feinstein/releases00/immigration_backlog2.html
Niall McAuley
>Hello Niall ... nice to meet you.
Hi, kipp. Could you turn off the HTML, or whatever it is?
Usenet groups generally prefer plain text. Thanks.
>I don't think it a question of behavior but rather a technique of
argumentation.
The reason I bring up behaviour is because I don't think there is any real
difference between strong and weak atheists. The only difference is what
they *say*, not what they do.
>The "absence of belief" technique limits the burden of proof to just he
"believer."
I also don't think it is true that "weak" atheism is adopted as a tactic for
arguments. It is true that it is much easier to defend *against theists*,
but
that is not the usual scenario in which the differences between weak and
strong atheism are debated.
>In my opinion many atheists fashioning this type of argument "believe there
>are no gods" and would do well to investigate and rationally justify their
>own belief ... the very same burden they require of their adversary.
This is simply rude: I believe there are no gods, you believe there are no
gods,
but there are a large group (possibly a majority of posters here) who do not
actively believe that. To waltz in here and anbnounce that lots of the
regulars
are *lying* when they say they are not strong atheists is even sillier than
fighting about which of these empirically similar positions is better
justified.
>So Niall, what rational basis do have for believing there are no gods?
There are a lot of contradictory religions. At most one of them is true.
The vast majority *must* be false, and I know of no evidence that any
particular one is true, so the sensible thing to believe is that they
are all false.
Hence, I believe that there are no gods.
--
Niall #36 [real address ends in se, not es]
kipp
Didn't mean to be rude, that's why I prefaced my remarks with "in my
opinion."
And it is my opinion (I could be wrong), that the vast majority of atheists
that post here would answer the question, "Do you believe the proposition
'gods exist' to be false?, would answer "yes" ... that's all ... not rude
... just an opinion.
kipp
Niall McAuley
> Thanks for the response Naill.
You're welcome.
> And it is my opinion (I could be wrong), that the vast majority of
atheists
> that post here would answer the question, "Do you believe the proposition
> 'gods exist' to be false?, would answer "yes" ... that's all ... not rude
> ... just an opinion.
Y'see, kipp, I'm with you, I would answer yes. The simple fact is
that most atheists here would *not* answer yes to that question.
They aren't pretending the answer is no to win debates, they really
*mean* no.
There are several different rationales for answering "no" while being
an atheist. I like Chris Lee's and Arturo Magidin's best. Hang around
and see what you think.
--
Niall #36 [real address ends in net, not ten.invalid]
Thanatos
To set the line length in outgoing newsgroup messages
Outlook Express automatically sets the line length of messages using plain
text format at 76 characters per line. This accommodates news servers that
do not display more than 80 characters per line. When messages are quoted in
a reply, the original text is usually marked and indented with an additional
character. If your message is likely to be quoted after posting, set your
text to wrap at 70 or 72 characters per line to prevent text from running
beyond the edge of the window.
1. On the Tools menu, click Options.
2. On the Send tab, in the News Sending Format section, select Plain Text,
and then click the Plain Text Settings button.
3. In the text box for Automatically wrap text at x characters when
sending, type the number of characters you want displayed per line.
stoney
]>New to the newsgroup ... Greetings folks.
]>
]>In this newsgroup as well as many other atheist writings, I find atheists
]>constantly intimating a position of "absence or lack of belief in order to
]>burden theists with providing a rational justification. Although the position
]>appears philosophically sound at first glance, I think it quite disingenuous.
How so? The situation is the same with every other item a person runs into in
the world.
I could assert that you owe me 100,000 USD. By your words above you would be
rushing down to the bank and getting a loan to cover the bank draft.
The thing is theists utilize rationality in every other area of their life, but
generate an exemption for their malevolent imaginary buddy.
Feel free to believe in Santa Claus or any other silly item you care to.
However, if you expect others to buy into it then you'd better objectively
support it.
]>It is my opinion that the vast majority of atheists worth their salt believe
]>as I do ... that the proposition "gods exist" is false. So, my salty friends,
]>on what rational grounds do you justify your belief that the proposition "God
]>exists" is false?
Others are supposed to consider your opinion as reality? (peals of laughter)
All one needs to do is to look at what is laughingly called a definition for the
g-o-d letter string. It begs the question, handwaves furiously, and provides
zero information. There is, literally, nothing to consider or look for.
]>The former absence of belief enthusiast,
You silly theist troll you.
]>kipp
Stoney
Geoff Sheffield
tcl...@yahoo.nogod wrote:
> In article <8lng7m$42g$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Geoff Sheffield <geo...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> > If we change the word "believe" to "have an opinion", does
> > that change your answer?
> >
> > Is it your opinion that god does not exist?
> >
> > If you don't have an opinion on this subject, why is that?
> > Clearly you have thought about it.
> >
> > I have two opinions on this subject:
> >
> > Opinion #1: God does not exist.
> >
> > Opinion #2: There is no such thing as belief. Every time somebody
> > says they believe something, they really mean they have
> > an opinion about it.
>
> The reason confusion arises is that to religionists, "belief" in a
> religious context means "accepting something in the absence of
evidence
> for it, or in the face of evidence to the contrary". To the god squad,
> this is highly virtuous while to the rest of us it is merely foolish
> gullibility.
But I don't think this is what they actually do. If you ask them
why they believe in God, there are a few possibilities. They may
give a series of reasons for their belief - the Bible, everybody
else is doing it, etc,etc. In this case, their "belief" is actually
an opinion based on evidence, or an opinion about the trustworthiness
of another person's reasoning. Or, they may say they just believe
without evidence - but based on my experience this claim is a lie.
They learned about God somewhere, they are just too embarrassed to
give their reasoning because it is patently ridiculous. I haven't
yet seen a case where the so-called "belief" in god is any different
from an opinion about who would make the best president.
>
> Of course, all but the most frenzied jeezus junkies would say that in
> other contexts, trusting strangers with your life savings for
> example, gullibility is not such a good idea. It's when the
god-prattle
> starts up that the rules change. Atheists (should) refuse to be bound
by
> those rules, or to accept the religious definition of "belief".
I agree. It is just an opinion. And anybody would laugh at them
if they formulated a similar opinion about anything other than god.
>
> For example, when I say I believe that no gods exist, that is not a
> religious belief, in the sense of lacking any basis and being held
> because it makes me feel virtuous. It follows from my hypothesis that
> the universe is rational, and subject to physical laws which can at
> least in principle be understood by humans. This hypothesis is in turn
> based on experience and my knowledge of science.
Yes, you have an opinion that god doesn't exist. My intention is
not to denigrate the word "opinion". Some opinions are better than
others, however. A sound opinion is based on logic and evidence.
An unsound opinion is based on wishful thinking, hearsay, fantasy,
etc. The opinion that god exists is very unsound.
>
> --
> Hugh D., Phoenix, The Arid Zone ### Delete god to email me.
> Justice for *LEGAL* immigrants - support S.2586!
> http://www.senate.gov/~feinstein/releases00/immigration_backlog2.html
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
--
Geoff Sheffield
Arturo Magidin
Niall McAuley <gnmc...@eircom.ten.invalid> wrote:
[.snip.]
>There are several different rationales for answering "no" while being
>an atheist. I like Chris Lee's and Arturo Magidin's best. Hang around
>and see what you think.
Oh my. Is it that time of the year again when I have to struggle to
explain why I'm a weak atheist and why I think that, in some of its
forms, weak atheism can be a stronger rejection of theism than strong
atheism?
Thanks for the kind words, though.
======================================================================
"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about
what I accept as reality."
--- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes")
======================================================================
Arturo Magidin
mag...@math.berkeley.edu
stoney
(snip)
]>As far as I'm concerned, the "weak" and "strong" labels give as
]>much rise to confusion as they clear things up and I'd rather
]>call my self just an atheist without any label.
And that's why I just utilize atheist.
(snip)
Stoney