info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Why have the New Atheists re-defined "Atheism"?
8 views
Skip to first unread message
Calvin Ramsey
Oct 22, 2012, 11:32:27 PM10/22/12
to
Atheists err in claiming that atheism involves only not believing that
there is a God rather than believing that there is no God.
There�s a history behind this. Certain atheists in the mid-twentieth
century were promoting the so-called �presumption of atheism.� At face
value, this would appear to be the claim that in the absence of evidence
for the existence of God, we should presume that God does not exist.
Atheism is a sort of default position, and the theist bears a special
burden of proof with regard to his belief that God exists.
So understood, such an alleged presumption is clearly mistaken. For the
assertion that �There is no God� is just as much a claim to knowledge as
is the assertion that �There is a God.� Therefore, the former assertion
requires justification just as the latter does. It is the agnostic who
makes no knowledge claim at all with respect to God�s existence. He
confesses that he doesn�t know whether there is a God or whether there
is no God.
But when you look more closely at how protagonists of the presumption of
atheism used the term �atheist,� you discover that they were defining
the word in a non-standard way, synonymous with �non-theist." So
understood the term would encompass agnostics and traditional atheists,
along with those who think the question meaningless (verificationists).
As Antony Flew confesses,
the word �atheist� has in the present context to be construed in an
unusual way. Nowadays it is normally taken to mean someone who
explicitly denies the existence . . . of God . . . But here it has to be
understood not positively but negatively, with the originally Greek
prefix �a-� being read in this same way in �atheist� as it customarily
is in . . . words as �amoral� . . . . In this interpretation an atheist
becomes not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God, but
someone who is simply not a theist. (A Companion to Philosophy of
Religion, ed. Philip Quinn and Charles Taliaferro [Oxford: Blackwell,
1997], s.v. �The Presumption of Atheism,� by Antony Flew)
Such a re-definition of the word �atheist� trivializes the claim of the
presumption of atheism, for on this definition, atheism ceases to be a
view. It is merely a psychological state which is shared by people who
hold various views or no view at all. On this re-definition, even
babies, who hold no opinion at all on the matter, count as atheists! In
fact, our cat Muff counts as an atheist on this definition, since she
has (to my knowledge) no belief in God.
One would still require justification in order to know either that God
exists or that He does not exist, which is the question we�re really
interested in.
So why, you might wonder, would atheists be anxious to so trivialize
their position? Here I agree with you that a deceptive game is being
played by many atheists. If atheism is taken to be a view, namely the
view that there is no God, then atheists must shoulder their share of
the burden of proof to support this view. But many atheists admit
freely that they cannot sustain such a burden of proof. So they try to
shirk their epistemic responsibility by re-defining atheism so that it
is no longer a view but just a psychological condition which as such
makes no assertions. They are really closet agnostics who want to claim
the mantle of atheism without shouldering its responsibilities.
(by William Lane Craig, "Reasonable Faith")
Submit all replies and questions to Dr. Craig here:
http://tinyurl.com/9qc73hv
there is a God rather than believing that there is no God.
There�s a history behind this. Certain atheists in the mid-twentieth
century were promoting the so-called �presumption of atheism.� At face
value, this would appear to be the claim that in the absence of evidence
for the existence of God, we should presume that God does not exist.
Atheism is a sort of default position, and the theist bears a special
burden of proof with regard to his belief that God exists.
So understood, such an alleged presumption is clearly mistaken. For the
assertion that �There is no God� is just as much a claim to knowledge as
is the assertion that �There is a God.� Therefore, the former assertion
requires justification just as the latter does. It is the agnostic who
makes no knowledge claim at all with respect to God�s existence. He
confesses that he doesn�t know whether there is a God or whether there
is no God.
But when you look more closely at how protagonists of the presumption of
atheism used the term �atheist,� you discover that they were defining
the word in a non-standard way, synonymous with �non-theist." So
understood the term would encompass agnostics and traditional atheists,
along with those who think the question meaningless (verificationists).
As Antony Flew confesses,
the word �atheist� has in the present context to be construed in an
unusual way. Nowadays it is normally taken to mean someone who
explicitly denies the existence . . . of God . . . But here it has to be
understood not positively but negatively, with the originally Greek
prefix �a-� being read in this same way in �atheist� as it customarily
is in . . . words as �amoral� . . . . In this interpretation an atheist
becomes not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God, but
someone who is simply not a theist. (A Companion to Philosophy of
Religion, ed. Philip Quinn and Charles Taliaferro [Oxford: Blackwell,
1997], s.v. �The Presumption of Atheism,� by Antony Flew)
Such a re-definition of the word �atheist� trivializes the claim of the
presumption of atheism, for on this definition, atheism ceases to be a
view. It is merely a psychological state which is shared by people who
hold various views or no view at all. On this re-definition, even
babies, who hold no opinion at all on the matter, count as atheists! In
fact, our cat Muff counts as an atheist on this definition, since she
has (to my knowledge) no belief in God.
One would still require justification in order to know either that God
exists or that He does not exist, which is the question we�re really
interested in.
So why, you might wonder, would atheists be anxious to so trivialize
their position? Here I agree with you that a deceptive game is being
played by many atheists. If atheism is taken to be a view, namely the
view that there is no God, then atheists must shoulder their share of
the burden of proof to support this view. But many atheists admit
freely that they cannot sustain such a burden of proof. So they try to
shirk their epistemic responsibility by re-defining atheism so that it
is no longer a view but just a psychological condition which as such
makes no assertions. They are really closet agnostics who want to claim
the mantle of atheism without shouldering its responsibilities.
(by William Lane Craig, "Reasonable Faith")
Submit all replies and questions to Dr. Craig here:
http://tinyurl.com/9qc73hv
Davej
Oct 23, 2012, 12:59:06 AM10/23/12
to
On Oct 22, 10:32 pm, Calvin Ramsey <calvinlram...@live.com> wrote:
> [...]
They didn't. Maybe your basic inbred dishonesty is confusing you.
> [...]
They didn't. Maybe your basic inbred dishonesty is confusing you.
Calvin Ramsey
Oct 23, 2012, 2:48:53 AM10/23/12
to
Tim
Oct 23, 2012, 2:49:48 AM10/23/12
to
"Calvin Ramsey" wrote in message news:k65341$2eg$1...@dont-email.me...
Atheists err in claiming that atheism involves only not believing that
there is a God rather than believing that there is no God.
Hey smirky, you've already been schooled on this:
I do not believe that I am hungry at this moment.
I believe that I am not hungry at this moment.
So smirky, what's the meaningful difference between the two?
Les
Oct 23, 2012, 4:13:29 AM10/23/12
to
On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 23:32:27 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
<calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>Atheists err in claiming that atheism involves only not believing that
>there is a God rather than believing that there is no God.
Nope, there is no error for this reason:
<calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>Atheists err in claiming that atheism involves only not believing that
>there is a God rather than believing that there is no God.
>For the
>assertion that “There is no God” is just as much a claim to knowledge as
>is the assertion that “There is a God.” Therefore, the former assertion
>requires justification just as the latter does.
Since I have no justification for either position I do not hold either
hence my complete absence of any kind of relgious belief.
<There be snippage>
>(by William Lane Craig, "Reasonable Faith")
>
>Submit all replies and questions to Dr. Craig here:
>http://tinyurl.com/9qc73hv
Greeting from:
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
Les Hellawell
Greeting from:
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
"In our more diverse and secular society, the place of religion has come to be a matter of lively discussion. It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue and that the wellbeing and prosperity of the nation depend on the contribution of individuals and groups of all faiths and of none. "
- Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
- from a speech to the Synond of the Church of England in 2010
Calvin Ramsey
Oct 23, 2012, 4:52:07 AM10/23/12
to
On 10/23/2012 4:13 AM, Les wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 23:32:27 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
> <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>
>> Atheists err in claiming that atheism involves only not believing that
>> there is a God rather than believing that there is no God.
>
> Nope, there is no error for this reason:
>
>> For the
>> assertion that “There is no God” is just as much a claim to knowledge as
>> is the assertion that “There is a God.” Therefore, the former assertion
>> requires justification just as the latter does.
>
> Since I have no justification for either position I do not hold either
> hence my complete absence of any kind of relgious(sic) belief.
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 23:32:27 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
> <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>
>> Atheists err in claiming that atheism involves only not believing that
>> there is a God rather than believing that there is no God.
>
> Nope, there is no error for this reason:
>
>> For the
>> assertion that “There is no God” is just as much a claim to knowledge as
>> is the assertion that “There is a God.” Therefore, the former assertion
>> requires justification just as the latter does.
>
> Since I have no justification for either position I do not hold either
Then that would make you an agnostic, not a self-proclaimed,
pretend-to-be atheist.
> <There be snippage>
Which is why you fail to see the error of your ways.
<smirk>
--
"Is English your First Language, Les?"
supern...@gmail.com
Oct 23, 2012, 5:24:18 AM10/23/12
to
someone should try reading Sam Harris's THE END OF FAITH instead of anything by W. Craig
Just my 2 cents.
ps
hope u're not reading Lee Strobel books too he tries to make evidence where there is none
Just my 2 cents.
ps
hope u're not reading Lee Strobel books too he tries to make evidence where there is none
Les
Oct 23, 2012, 5:31:37 AM10/23/12
to
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 04:52:07 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
- From James Bond; Live and Let Die
It is what I actually am that matters not what labels people
choose to pin on me.
And what I am is 'not theist' and without any relgious beliefs.
As I and others have told you many times theist 'Ramsey'.
>> <There be snippage>
>
>Which is why you fail to see the error of your ways.
><smirk>
Read this passage by Craig and you might realise the
error of your ways. You might need to read it several
times before you get it.
>>> For the
>>> assertion that �There is no God� is just as much a claim to knowledge as
>>> is the assertion that �There is a God.� Therefore, the former assertion
>>> requires justification just as the latter does
Here, I will repeat it for you:
>>> For the
>>> assertion that �There is no God� is just as much a claim to knowledge as
>>> is the assertion that �There is a God.� Therefore, the former assertion
>>> requires justification just as the latter does
A third time for luck:
>>> For the
>>> assertion that �There is no God� is just as much a claim to knowledge as
>>> is the assertion that �There is a God.� Therefore, the former assertion
>>> requires justification just as the latter does
Have you got it yet?
I have and most of my atheist friends have too.
<calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>On 10/23/2012 4:13 AM, Les wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 23:32:27 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
>> <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Atheists err in claiming that atheism involves only not believing that
>>> there is a God rather than believing that there is no God.
>>
>> Nope, there is no error for this reason:
>>
>>> For the
>>> assertion that �There is no God� is just as much a claim to knowledge as
>>> is the assertion that �There is a God.� Therefore, the former assertion
>>> requires justification just as the latter does.
>>
>> Since I have no justification for either position I do not hold either
>> hence my complete absence of any kind of relgious(sic) belief.
>
>Then that would make you an agnostic, not a self-proclaimed,
>pretend-to-be atheist.
"Names are for tombstones baby"
>On 10/23/2012 4:13 AM, Les wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 23:32:27 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
>> <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Atheists err in claiming that atheism involves only not believing that
>>> there is a God rather than believing that there is no God.
>>
>> Nope, there is no error for this reason:
>>
>>> For the
>>> assertion that �There is no God� is just as much a claim to knowledge as
>>> is the assertion that �There is a God.� Therefore, the former assertion
>>> requires justification just as the latter does.
>>
>> Since I have no justification for either position I do not hold either
>> hence my complete absence of any kind of relgious(sic) belief.
>
>Then that would make you an agnostic, not a self-proclaimed,
>pretend-to-be atheist.
- From James Bond; Live and Let Die
It is what I actually am that matters not what labels people
choose to pin on me.
And what I am is 'not theist' and without any relgious beliefs.
As I and others have told you many times theist 'Ramsey'.
>> <There be snippage>
>
>Which is why you fail to see the error of your ways.
><smirk>
error of your ways. You might need to read it several
times before you get it.
>>> For the
>>> assertion that �There is no God� is just as much a claim to knowledge as
>>> is the assertion that �There is a God.� Therefore, the former assertion
>>> requires justification just as the latter does
>>> For the
>>> assertion that �There is no God� is just as much a claim to knowledge as
>>> is the assertion that �There is a God.� Therefore, the former assertion
>>> requires justification just as the latter does
>>> For the
>>> assertion that �There is no God� is just as much a claim to knowledge as
>>> is the assertion that �There is a God.� Therefore, the former assertion
>>> requires justification just as the latter does
I have and most of my atheist friends have too.
Calvin Ramsey
Oct 23, 2012, 6:04:03 AM10/23/12
to
On 10/23/2012 5:31 AM, Les wrote:
> Read this passage by Craig and you might realise the
> error of your ways. You might need to read it several
> times before you get it.
>
>>>> For the
> Read this passage by Craig and you might realise the
> error of your ways. You might need to read it several
> times before you get it.
>
>>>> For the
>>>> assertion that �There is no God� is just as much a claim to knowledge as
>>>> is the assertion that �There is a God.� Therefore, the former assertion
>>>> requires justification just as the latter does
That has nothing to do with you, an agnostic, Les.
Agnostics have nothing to justify.
They're less than nothing.
Don't you get that?
Catpain 'Merca
Oct 23, 2012, 9:09:52 AM10/23/12
to
Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote in news:k65341$2eg$1@dont-
email.me:
Serial Liar Cramsey, you slopping pile of dredged manure, are you still here?
Well, I suppose it's better than you being out on the streets trying to
frighten children. At least here you can be ignored and/or ridiculed at
electronic speeds. Your theology is a wasteland of stupidity and meanness
unsurpassed by the scrawlings of Ron Loon Hubbert, or that Vedic loon Jesper.
Take yourself to a mountain top and wait for my call.
Catpain Merca
--
.
email.me:
Serial Liar Cramsey, you slopping pile of dredged manure, are you still here?
Well, I suppose it's better than you being out on the streets trying to
frighten children. At least here you can be ignored and/or ridiculed at
electronic speeds. Your theology is a wasteland of stupidity and meanness
unsurpassed by the scrawlings of Ron Loon Hubbert, or that Vedic loon Jesper.
Take yourself to a mountain top and wait for my call.
>
> (by William Lane Craig, "Reasonable Faith")
Quoting Lamer simply shows you never had an argument to begin with.
> (by William Lane Craig, "Reasonable Faith")
Catpain Merca
--
.
Christopher A. Lee
Oct 23, 2012, 10:16:13 AM10/23/12
to
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 13:09:52 +0000 (UTC), "Catpain 'Merca"
<catpai...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote in news:k65341$2eg$1@dont-
>email.me:
>
>Serial Liar Cramsey, you slopping pile of dredged manure, are you still here?
>Well, I suppose it's better than you being out on the streets trying to
>frighten children. At least here you can be ignored and/or ridiculed at
>electronic speeds. Your theology is a wasteland of stupidity and meanness
>unsurpassed by the scrawlings of Ron Loon Hubbert, or that Vedic loon Jesper.
>Take yourself to a mountain top and wait for my call.
People's Gods reflect themselves.
<catpai...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Calvin Ramsey <calvin...@live.com> wrote in news:k65341$2eg$1@dont-
>email.me:
>
>Serial Liar Cramsey, you slopping pile of dredged manure, are you still here?
>Well, I suppose it's better than you being out on the streets trying to
>frighten children. At least here you can be ignored and/or ridiculed at
>electronic speeds. Your theology is a wasteland of stupidity and meanness
>unsurpassed by the scrawlings of Ron Loon Hubbert, or that Vedic loon Jesper.
>Take yourself to a mountain top and wait for my call.
Decent people have decent gods, evil people have evil gods.
And Calvin's is a psychopath.
Authoritarian people have authoritarian gods who tell everybody else
what to do.
And of course each and every one of them is the one and only god, the
supreme being, the absolute arbiter of everything etc.
>> (by William Lane Craig, "Reasonable Faith")
>
>Quoting Lamer simply shows you never had an argument to begin with.
Craig is another dishonest, nasty Liar for God.
>
>Quoting Lamer simply shows you never had an argument to begin with.
>Catpain Merca
raven1
Oct 23, 2012, 10:47:31 AM10/23/12
to
You don't get to define atheism for atheists, you smug, arrogant fool.
Fuck off.
Fuck off.
Christopher A. Lee
Oct 23, 2012, 11:06:45 AM10/23/12
to
it wrong. We correct them and they arrogantly, nastily try to "prove"
they're right.
It's one of the major causes of acrimony between atheists and theists.
If we don't put up with it and treat them as they deserve, they
imagine it is unprovoked nastiness on our part.
"Christians tell me that they love their enemies, and yet all
I ask is -- not that they love their enemies, not that they love
their friends even, but that they treat those who differ from them,
with simple fairness. We do not wish to be forgiven, but we wish
Christians to so act that we will not have to forgive them."
- Robert Green Ingersoll
Calvin Ramsey
Oct 23, 2012, 11:47:12 AM10/23/12
to
On 10/23/2012 11:06 AM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> "Christians tell me that they love their enemies, and yet all
> I ask is -- not that they love their enemies, not that they love
> their friends even, but that they treat those who differ from them,
> with simple fairness. We do not wish to be forgiven, but we wish
> Christians to so act that we will not have to forgive them."
>
> - Robert Green Ingersoll
If you think we're being unfair with you by simply disagreeing with what
> "Christians tell me that they love their enemies, and yet all
> I ask is -- not that they love their enemies, not that they love
> their friends even, but that they treat those who differ from them,
> with simple fairness. We do not wish to be forgiven, but we wish
> Christians to so act that we will not have to forgive them."
>
> - Robert Green Ingersoll
you have publicly proclaimed, then you have a very deep psychological
problem, and I feel even more pity for you.
John Locke
Oct 23, 2012, 12:51:16 PM10/23/12
to
>Atheists err in claiming that atheism involves only not believing that
>there is a God rather than believing that there is no God....
>
...wrong. I'll make it simple for you. I have the same same belief
about your god as I do about Bigfoot, Chupacabra and the Loch
Ness monster. THERE AIN'T NO FUCKIN' EVIDENCE. Therefore,
the odds of existence are near zero. HOWEVER, there's a much better
chance that Bigfoot, Chupacabra and the Loch Monster exist as opposed
to your god. Aren't you getting tired of groveling to a well hidden
psychopathic killer ?? Give Bigfoot a chance. At least you have a
few footprints.
Calvin Ramsey
Oct 23, 2012, 1:00:49 PM10/23/12
to
On 10/23/2012 12:51 PM, John Locke wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 23:32:27 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
> <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>
>> Atheists err in claiming that atheism involves only not believing that
>> there is a God rather than believing that there is no God....
>>
> ...wrong. I'll make it simple for you. I have the same same belief
> about your god as I do about Bigfoot, Chupacabra and the Loch
> Ness monster. THERE AIN'T NO FUCKIN' EVIDENCE.
It is only your opinion that there is no evidence. You cannot know all
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 23:32:27 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
> <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>
>> Atheists err in claiming that atheism involves only not believing that
>> there is a God rather than believing that there is no God....
>>
> ...wrong. I'll make it simple for you. I have the same same belief
> about your god as I do about Bigfoot, Chupacabra and the Loch
> Ness monster. THERE AIN'T NO FUCKIN' EVIDENCE.
evidence for or against God, therefore you cannot say there is no
evidence for God.
> Therefore, the odds of existence are near zero.
raven1
Oct 23, 2012, 1:25:38 PM10/23/12
to
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 13:00:49 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
an admission that you have none to produce.
<calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>On 10/23/2012 12:51 PM, John Locke wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 23:32:27 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
>> <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Atheists err in claiming that atheism involves only not believing that
>>> there is a God rather than believing that there is no God....
>>>
>> ...wrong. I'll make it simple for you. I have the same same belief
>> about your god as I do about Bigfoot, Chupacabra and the Loch
>> Ness monster. THERE AIN'T NO FUCKIN' EVIDENCE.
>
>It is only your opinion that there is no evidence. You cannot know all
>evidence for or against God, therefore you cannot say there is no
>evidence for God.
Present your evidence below, then. Failure to do so will be taken as
>On 10/23/2012 12:51 PM, John Locke wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 23:32:27 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
>> <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Atheists err in claiming that atheism involves only not believing that
>>> there is a God rather than believing that there is no God....
>>>
>> ...wrong. I'll make it simple for you. I have the same same belief
>> about your god as I do about Bigfoot, Chupacabra and the Loch
>> Ness monster. THERE AIN'T NO FUCKIN' EVIDENCE.
>
>It is only your opinion that there is no evidence. You cannot know all
>evidence for or against God, therefore you cannot say there is no
>evidence for God.
an admission that you have none to produce.
Irreverend Dave
Oct 23, 2012, 2:42:16 PM10/23/12
to
in my sig.
--
"Theology is not a source of genuine knowledge and therefore is not a
science. Reason and religion are thus at odds with each other."
- William Lane Craig
Syd M.
Oct 23, 2012, 5:35:58 PM10/23/12
to
On Oct 23, 2:48 am, Calvin Ramsey <calvinlram...@live.com> wrote:
> Atheists <>
<Yawn>
Keep doing this reposting nonsense, and you'll become as boring as
Liarboi.
> Atheists <>
<Yawn>
Keep doing this reposting nonsense, and you'll become as boring as
Liarboi.
John Locke
Oct 23, 2012, 5:43:49 PM10/23/12
to
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 13:00:49 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
is no supporting evidence to test. However, given the fact that
there is no trace of your supposed god, the preposterous human nature
of your god and the fact that your god has never figured into any
scientific theory explaining how nature functions, renders the
existence of any god extremely doubtful...near zero. Thus, in my
informed opinion, your god does not exist.
It's up to you to provide evidence that cam be tested and verified.
Thousands of years have passed..so far..nothing. You're in an a uphill
battle to save your god from extinction..you'd better get your ass in
gear.
<calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>On 10/23/2012 12:51 PM, John Locke wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 23:32:27 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
>> <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Atheists err in claiming that atheism involves only not believing that
>>> there is a God rather than believing that there is no God....
>>>
>> ...wrong. I'll make it simple for you. I have the same same belief
>> about your god as I do about Bigfoot, Chupacabra and the Loch
>> Ness monster. THERE AIN'T NO FUCKIN' EVIDENCE.
>
>It is only your opinion that there is no evidence. You cannot know all
>evidence for or against God, therefore you cannot say there is no
>evidence for God.
>
>> Therefore, the odds of existence are near zero.
>
>So, you believe there might be a God?
>
No. The bold claim that a god exists is not falsifiable because there
>On 10/23/2012 12:51 PM, John Locke wrote:
>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 23:32:27 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
>> <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Atheists err in claiming that atheism involves only not believing that
>>> there is a God rather than believing that there is no God....
>>>
>> ...wrong. I'll make it simple for you. I have the same same belief
>> about your god as I do about Bigfoot, Chupacabra and the Loch
>> Ness monster. THERE AIN'T NO FUCKIN' EVIDENCE.
>
>It is only your opinion that there is no evidence. You cannot know all
>evidence for or against God, therefore you cannot say there is no
>evidence for God.
>
>> Therefore, the odds of existence are near zero.
>
>So, you believe there might be a God?
>
is no supporting evidence to test. However, given the fact that
there is no trace of your supposed god, the preposterous human nature
of your god and the fact that your god has never figured into any
scientific theory explaining how nature functions, renders the
existence of any god extremely doubtful...near zero. Thus, in my
informed opinion, your god does not exist.
It's up to you to provide evidence that cam be tested and verified.
Thousands of years have passed..so far..nothing. You're in an a uphill
battle to save your god from extinction..you'd better get your ass in
gear.
Calvin Ramsey
Oct 23, 2012, 5:53:04 PM10/23/12
to
On 10/23/2012 5:43 PM, John Locke wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 13:00:49 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
> <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/23/2012 12:51 PM, John Locke wrote:
>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 23:32:27 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
>>> <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Atheists err in claiming that atheism involves only not believing that
>>>> there is a God rather than believing that there is no God....
>>>>
>>> ...wrong. I'll make it simple for you. I have the same same belief
>>> about your god as I do about Bigfoot, Chupacabra and the Loch
>>> Ness monster. THERE AIN'T NO FUCKIN' EVIDENCE.
>>
>> It is only your opinion that there is no evidence. You cannot know all
>> evidence for or against God, therefore you cannot say there is no
>> evidence for God.
>>
>>> Therefore, the odds of existence are near zero.
>>
>> So, you believe there might be a God?
>>
> No. The bold claim that a god exists is not falsifiable because there
> is no supporting evidence to test. However, given the fact that
> there is no trace of your supposed god, the preposterous human nature
> of your god and the fact that your god has never figured into any
> scientific theory explaining how nature functions, renders the
> existence of any god extremely doubtful...near zero. Thus, in my
> informed opinion, your god does not exist.
Well, anybody who knows will tell you that you're "looking" for him in
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 13:00:49 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
> <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/23/2012 12:51 PM, John Locke wrote:
>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 23:32:27 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
>>> <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Atheists err in claiming that atheism involves only not believing that
>>>> there is a God rather than believing that there is no God....
>>>>
>>> ...wrong. I'll make it simple for you. I have the same same belief
>>> about your god as I do about Bigfoot, Chupacabra and the Loch
>>> Ness monster. THERE AIN'T NO FUCKIN' EVIDENCE.
>>
>> It is only your opinion that there is no evidence. You cannot know all
>> evidence for or against God, therefore you cannot say there is no
>> evidence for God.
>>
>>> Therefore, the odds of existence are near zero.
>>
>> So, you believe there might be a God?
>>
> No. The bold claim that a god exists is not falsifiable because there
> is no supporting evidence to test. However, given the fact that
> there is no trace of your supposed god, the preposterous human nature
> of your god and the fact that your god has never figured into any
> scientific theory explaining how nature functions, renders the
> existence of any god extremely doubtful...near zero. Thus, in my
> informed opinion, your god does not exist.
the wrong places.
And that is due to him not giving you eyes to see and ears to hear with.
In other words, the evidence of God's existence is not revealed to
everybody.
You are being kept from "seeing" the evidence of God's existence.
It's really that simple.
"And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are
perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of
the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the
glory of Christ, who is the image of God."
--2 Corinthians 4:3-4 (ESV)
"Whoever is of God hears the words of God. The reason why you do not
hear them is that you are not of God."
--John 8:47 (ESV)
"In him we [the chosen elect] have obtained an inheritance, having been
predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things
according to the counsel of his will."
--Ephesians 1:11 (ESV)
"So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he
wills. You will say to me then, 'Why does he still find fault? For who
can resist his will?' But who are you, O man, to answer back to God?
Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?'
Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one
vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?"
--Romans 9:18-21 (ESV)
Christopher A. Lee
Oct 23, 2012, 5:56:35 PM10/23/12
to
On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 14:43:49 -0700, John Locke
<johnnyd...@demonmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 13:00:49 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
><calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>
>>On 10/23/2012 12:51 PM, John Locke wrote:
>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 23:32:27 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
>>> <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Atheists err in claiming that atheism involves only not believing that
>>>> there is a God rather than believing that there is no God....
>>>>
>>> ...wrong. I'll make it simple for you. I have the same same belief
>>> about your god as I do about Bigfoot, Chupacabra and the Loch
>>> Ness monster. THERE AIN'T NO FUCKIN' EVIDENCE.
>>
>>It is only your opinion that there is no evidence. You cannot know all
>>evidence for or against God, therefore you cannot say there is no
>>evidence for God.
Lie noted - it is a falsifiable conclusion.
<johnnyd...@demonmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 13:00:49 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
><calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>
>>On 10/23/2012 12:51 PM, John Locke wrote:
>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 23:32:27 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
>>> <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Atheists err in claiming that atheism involves only not believing that
>>>> there is a God rather than believing that there is no God....
>>>>
>>> ...wrong. I'll make it simple for you. I have the same same belief
>>> about your god as I do about Bigfoot, Chupacabra and the Loch
>>> Ness monster. THERE AIN'T NO FUCKIN' EVIDENCE.
>>
>>It is only your opinion that there is no evidence. You cannot know all
>>evidence for or against God, therefore you cannot say there is no
>>evidence for God.
You falsify it by providing the evidence that none of you liars have
ever provided.
Not by lying about and to atheists, which simply reinforces the
conclusion.
>>> Therefore, the odds of existence are near zero.
>>
>>So, you believe there might be a God?
that they wipe in our faces day in and day out, is too irrelevant to
have that belief about.
>No. The bold claim that a god exists is not falsifiable because there
>is no supporting evidence to test. However, given the fact that
>there is no trace of your supposed god, the preposterous human nature
>of your god and the fact that your god has never figured into any
>scientific theory explaining how nature functions, renders the
>existence of any god extremely doubtful...near zero. Thus, in my
>informed opinion, your god does not exist.
it's merely somebody else's ridiculous belief about which we wouldn't
give a flying fuck if he and his co-religionists had the commonsense
and courtesy to keep it where it belongs.
>It's up to you to provide evidence that cam be tested and verified.
>Thousands of years have passed..so far..nothing. You're in an a uphill
>battle to save your god from extinction..you'd better get your ass in
>gear.
psychologically incapable of shutting up.
So he makes a jerk of himself and continues to be one.
Calvin Ramsey
Oct 23, 2012, 6:07:54 PM10/23/12
to
On 10/23/2012 5:56 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 14:43:49 -0700, John Locke
> <johnnyd...@demonmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 13:00:49 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
>> <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/23/2012 12:51 PM, John Locke wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 23:32:27 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
>>>> <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Atheists err in claiming that atheism involves only not believing that
>>>>> there is a God rather than believing that there is no God....
>>>>>
>>>> ...wrong. I'll make it simple for you. I have the same same belief
>>>> about your god as I do about Bigfoot, Chupacabra and the Loch
>>>> Ness monster. THERE AIN'T NO FUCKIN' EVIDENCE.
>>>
>>> It is only your opinion that there is no evidence. You cannot know all
>>> evidence for or against God, therefore you cannot say there is no
>>> evidence for God.
>
> Lie noted - it is a falsifiable conclusion.
If you make the claim that it is falsifiable, then you have to prove
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 14:43:49 -0700, John Locke
> <johnnyd...@demonmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 23 Oct 2012 13:00:49 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
>> <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/23/2012 12:51 PM, John Locke wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 22 Oct 2012 23:32:27 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
>>>> <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Atheists err in claiming that atheism involves only not believing that
>>>>> there is a God rather than believing that there is no God....
>>>>>
>>>> ...wrong. I'll make it simple for you. I have the same same belief
>>>> about your god as I do about Bigfoot, Chupacabra and the Loch
>>>> Ness monster. THERE AIN'T NO FUCKIN' EVIDENCE.
>>>
>>> It is only your opinion that there is no evidence. You cannot know all
>>> evidence for or against God, therefore you cannot say there is no
>>> evidence for God.
>
> Lie noted - it is a falsifiable conclusion.
what you claim, otherwise that makes *you* the liar, spewing all the lies.
Oops. You've backed yourself into a corner.
<smirk>
Calvin Ramsey
Oct 25, 2012, 7:01:48 PM10/25/12
to
Atheists err in claiming that atheism involves only not believing that
there is a God rather than believing that there is no God.
There’s a history behind this. Certain atheists in the mid-twentieth
there is a God rather than believing that there is no God.
century were promoting the so-called “presumption of atheism.” At face
value, this would appear to be the claim that in the absence of evidence
for the existence of God, we should presume that God does not exist.
Atheism is a sort of default position, and the theist bears a special
burden of proof with regard to his belief that God exists.
So understood, such an alleged presumption is clearly mistaken. For the
for the existence of God, we should presume that God does not exist.
Atheism is a sort of default position, and the theist bears a special
burden of proof with regard to his belief that God exists.
assertion that “There is no God” is just as much a claim to knowledge as
is the assertion that “There is a God.” Therefore, the former assertion
requires justification just as the latter does. It is the agnostic who
makes no knowledge claim at all with respect to God’s existence. He
confesses that he doesn’t know whether there is a God or whether there
is no God.
But when you look more closely at how protagonists of the presumption of
atheism used the term “atheist,” you discover that they were defining
But when you look more closely at how protagonists of the presumption of
the word in a non-standard way, synonymous with “non-theist." So
understood the term would encompass agnostics and traditional atheists,
along with those who think the question meaningless (verificationists).
As Antony Flew confesses,
the word ‘atheist’ has in the present context to be construed in an
along with those who think the question meaningless (verificationists).
As Antony Flew confesses,
unusual way. Nowadays it is normally taken to mean someone who
explicitly denies the existence . . . of God . . . But here it has to be
understood not positively but negatively, with the originally Greek
prefix ‘a-’ being read in this same way in ‘atheist’ as it customarily
explicitly denies the existence . . . of God . . . But here it has to be
understood not positively but negatively, with the originally Greek
is in . . . words as ‘amoral’ . . . . In this interpretation an atheist
becomes not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God, but
someone who is simply not a theist. (A Companion to Philosophy of
Religion, ed. Philip Quinn and Charles Taliaferro [Oxford: Blackwell,
1997], s.v. “The Presumption of Atheism,” by Antony Flew)
someone who is simply not a theist. (A Companion to Philosophy of
Religion, ed. Philip Quinn and Charles Taliaferro [Oxford: Blackwell,
Such a re-definition of the word “atheist” trivializes the claim of the
presumption of atheism, for on this definition, atheism ceases to be a
view. It is merely a psychological state which is shared by people who
hold various views or no view at all. On this re-definition, even
babies, who hold no opinion at all on the matter, count as atheists! In
fact, our cat Muff counts as an atheist on this definition, since she
has (to my knowledge) no belief in God.
One would still require justification in order to know either that God
exists or that He does not exist, which is the question we’re really
view. It is merely a psychological state which is shared by people who
hold various views or no view at all. On this re-definition, even
babies, who hold no opinion at all on the matter, count as atheists! In
fact, our cat Muff counts as an atheist on this definition, since she
has (to my knowledge) no belief in God.
One would still require justification in order to know either that God
interested in.
So why, you might wonder, would atheists be anxious to so trivialize
their position? Here I agree with you that a deceptive game is being
played by many atheists. If atheism is taken to be a view, namely the
view that there is no God, then atheists must shoulder their share of
the burden of proof to support this view. But many atheists admit
freely that they cannot sustain such a burden of proof. So they try to
shirk their epistemic responsibility by re-defining atheism so that it
is no longer a view but just a psychological condition which as such
makes no assertions. They are really closet agnostics who want to claim
the mantle of atheism without shouldering its responsibilities.
So why, you might wonder, would atheists be anxious to so trivialize
their position? Here I agree with you that a deceptive game is being
played by many atheists. If atheism is taken to be a view, namely the
view that there is no God, then atheists must shoulder their share of
the burden of proof to support this view. But many atheists admit
freely that they cannot sustain such a burden of proof. So they try to
shirk their epistemic responsibility by re-defining atheism so that it
is no longer a view but just a psychological condition which as such
makes no assertions. They are really closet agnostics who want to claim
the mantle of atheism without shouldering its responsibilities.
(by William Lane Craig, "Reasonable Faith")
Syd M.
Oct 25, 2012, 7:03:32 PM10/25/12
to
On Oct 25, 7:01 pm, Calvin Ramsey <calvinlram...@live.com> wrote:
> Atheists err in claiming that atheism involves only not believing that
> there is a God rather than believing that there is no God.
>
>
Nope.
> Atheists err in claiming that atheism involves only not believing that
> there is a God rather than believing that there is no God.
>
>
Syd Maniac
Oct 25, 2012, 7:43:06 PM10/25/12
to
Calvin Ramsey wrote:
> Atheists err in claiming that atheism involves only not believing that
> there is a God rather than believing that there is no God.
>
>
Nope.
> Atheists err in claiming that atheism involves only not believing that
> there is a God rather than believing that there is no God.
>
>
--
PDW
Check out my comic blogs:
http://theincognitomultiverse.blogspot.com/
http://incognitoheroes.blogspot.com/
http://warintime.blogspot.com/
http://corneliusaddaptionproject.blogspot.com/
http://thearrakiscycle.blogspot.com/
Les
Oct 26, 2012, 4:15:06 AM10/26/12
to
On Thu, 25 Oct 2012 19:01:48 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
<calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>Atheists err in claiming that atheism involves only not believing that
>there is a God rather than believing that there is no God.
<calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>Atheists err in claiming that atheism involves only not believing that
>there is a God rather than believing that there is no God.
Nope, there is no error for this reason:
>For the
>assertion that �There is no God� is just as much a claim to knowledge as
>is the assertion that �There is a God.� Therefore, the former assertion
>requires justification just as the latter does.
>assertion that �There is no God� is just as much a claim to knowledge as
>is the assertion that �There is a God.� Therefore, the former assertion
>requires justification just as the latter does.
>(by William Lane Craig, "Reasonable Faith")
Here Craig discusses our level of knowledge of the claimed gods.
A fancy way to describe such knowledge is the word 'gnostic'
(see definition below*)
Just as the word 'atheist' means 'without theism' so 'agnostic' means
'without knowledge' (using the standard prefix a- meaning 'without')
As Craig tells us, if we are to claim we are not agnostic (without
knowledge) of gods we requires justification. I am not aware of any
and nor, it seems, is Craig.
Turning from levels of knowledge (gnostic/agnostic) of claimed gods to
belief or absence of belief about them (theist/atheist):
As it would not be sensible to try and form a belief around something
I am completely agnostic about (have no knowledge of) the only
sensible approach is not to try so I am not theist (atheist)
So I am atheist for agnostic reasons and always have been.
Being without god beliefs is the only sensible position a person can
be in unless they can offer the justification Craig talks about. To my
knowledge nobody has yet furnished demonstrable evidence there is or
there is not a god let alone proof. So I have nothing around which to
form an kind of god beliefs. It would make no sense.
<There be snippage>
*gnostic [n�stik]
adjective
"of knowledge: relating to knowledge, especially knowledge of
spiritual truths"
[Mid-17th century. See Gnostic]
Microsoft� Encarta� 2007. � 1993-2006 Microsoft Corporation. All
rights
Les Hellawell
Greeting from:
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
"For the assertion that �There is no God� is just as much a claim to
knowledge as is the assertion that �There is a God.� Therefore, the
former assertion requires justification just as the latter does. "
- William Lane Craig, "Reasonable Faith"
knowledge as is the assertion that �There is a God.� Therefore, the
former assertion requires justification just as the latter does. "
Calvin Ramsey
Oct 26, 2012, 4:29:13 AM10/26/12
to
On 10/26/2012 4:15 AM, Les wrote:
> So I am atheist for agnostic reasons and always have been.
You are free to call yourself whatever you like to be called. We
> So I am atheist for agnostic reasons and always have been.
Christians know you're wrong.
You see, if you do not believe either that God exists, or that He does
not exist, then you are an agnostic, no matter how desperately you want
to change the definition of "atheist".
Just so you know that we know that you're wrong,
<smirk>
Les
Oct 26, 2012, 8:35:38 AM10/26/12
to
Calvin Ramsey
Oct 26, 2012, 8:44:14 AM10/26/12
to
On 10/26/2012 8:35 AM, Les wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 04:29:13 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
> <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/26/2012 4:15 AM, Les wrote:
>>
>>> So I am atheist for agnostic reasons and always have been.
>>
>> You are free to call yourself whatever you like to be called. We
>> Christians know you're wrong.
>>
>> You see, if you do not believe either that God exists, or that He does
>> not exist, then you are an agnostic, no matter how desperately you want
>> to change the definition of "atheist".
>>
>>
>> Just so you know that we know that you're wrong,
>
> My expectations that you would remain in denial is confirmed.
And I know you're wrong about that, too.
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 04:29:13 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
> <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/26/2012 4:15 AM, Les wrote:
>>
>>> So I am atheist for agnostic reasons and always have been.
>>
>> You are free to call yourself whatever you like to be called. We
>> Christians know you're wrong.
>>
>> You see, if you do not believe either that God exists, or that He does
>> not exist, then you are an agnostic, no matter how desperately you want
>> to change the definition of "atheist".
>>
>>
>> Just so you know that we know that you're wrong,
>
> My expectations that you would remain in denial is confirmed.
My expectations that you would continue lying to yourself is confirmed.
<smirk>
Calvin Ramsey
Oct 28, 2012, 2:01:30 AM10/28/12
to
Atheists err in claiming that atheism involves only not believing that
there is a God rather than believing that there is no God.
there is a God rather than believing that there is no God.
There’s a history behind this. Certain atheists in the mid-twentieth
century were promoting the so-called “presumption of atheism.” At face
value, this would appear to be the claim that in the absence of evidence
for the existence of God, we should presume that God does not exist.
Atheism is a sort of default position, and the theist bears a special
burden of proof with regard to his belief that God exists.
So understood, such an alleged presumption is clearly mistaken. For the
century were promoting the so-called “presumption of atheism.” At face
value, this would appear to be the claim that in the absence of evidence
for the existence of God, we should presume that God does not exist.
Atheism is a sort of default position, and the theist bears a special
burden of proof with regard to his belief that God exists.
assertion that “There is no God” is just as much a claim to knowledge as
is the assertion that “There is a God.” Therefore, the former assertion
is the assertion that “There is a God.” Therefore, the former assertion
Les
Oct 28, 2012, 5:09:01 AM10/28/12
to
On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 02:01:30 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
<calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>Atheists err in claiming that atheism involves only not believing that
>there is a God rather than believing that there is no God.
>
<calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>Atheists err in claiming that atheism involves only not believing that
>there is a God rather than believing that there is no God.
>
Nope, there is no error for this reason:
>For the
>assertion that “There is no God” is just as much a claim to knowledge as
>is the assertion that “There is a God.” Therefore, the former assertion
>requires justification just as the latter does.
>assertion that “There is no God” is just as much a claim to knowledge as
>is the assertion that “There is a God.” Therefore, the former assertion
>requires justification just as the latter does.
>(by William Lane Craig, "Reasonable Faith")
Here Craig discusses our level of knowledge of the claimed gods.
A fancy way to describe such knowledge is the word 'gnostic'
(see definition below*)
Just as the word 'atheist' means 'without theism' so 'agnostic' means
'without knowledge' (using the standard prefix a- meaning 'without')
Since the prefix originates with the Greeks there is nothing new about
A fancy way to describe such knowledge is the word 'gnostic'
(see definition below*)
Just as the word 'atheist' means 'without theism' so 'agnostic' means
'without knowledge' (using the standard prefix a- meaning 'without')
it.
As Craig tells us, if we are to claim we are not agnostic (without
and nor, it seems, is Craig.
Turning from levels of knowledge (gnostic/agnostic) of claimed gods to
belief (theism) or absence of belief (atheism):
Turning from levels of knowledge (gnostic/agnostic) of claimed gods to
As it would not be sensible to try and form a belief around something
I am completely agnostic about (have no knowledge of) the only
So I am not theist (atheist) for agnostic reasons and always have
been.
Having thusly dismissed religion beliefs as nothing substatial It
merits no futher consideration or interest.
<There be snippage>
*gnostic [nóstik]
adjective
"of knowledge: relating to knowledge, especially knowledge of
spiritual truths"
[Mid-17th century. See Gnostic]
Microsoft® Encarta® 2007. © 1993-2006 Microsoft Corporation. All
rights
"of knowledge: relating to knowledge, especially knowledge of
spiritual truths"
[Mid-17th century. See Gnostic]
Microsoft® Encarta® 2007. © 1993-2006 Microsoft Corporation. All
rights
Les Hellawell
Greeting from:
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
Greeting from:
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
"For the assertion that “There is no God” is just as much a claim to
knowledge as is the assertion that “There is a God.” Therefore, the
former assertion requires justification just as the latter does. "
- William Lane Craig, "Reasonable Faith"
knowledge as is the assertion that “There is a God.” Therefore, the
former assertion requires justification just as the latter does. "
Les Hellawell
Greeting from:
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
Greeting from:
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
"For the assertion that “There is no God” is just as much a claim to knowledge as is the assertion that “There is a God.” Therefore, the former assertion requires justification just as the latter does. "
- William Lane Craig, "Reasonable Faith"
Calvin Ramsey
Oct 28, 2012, 7:01:41 AM10/28/12
to
Atheists err in claiming that atheism involves only not believing that
there is a God rather than believing that there is no God.
There�s a history behind this. Certain atheists in the mid-twentieth
there is a God rather than believing that there is no God.
century were promoting the so-called �presumption of atheism.� At face
value, this would appear to be the claim that in the absence of evidence
for the existence of God, we should presume that God does not exist.
Atheism is a sort of default position, and the theist bears a special
burden of proof with regard to his belief that God exists.
So understood, such an alleged presumption is clearly mistaken. For the
for the existence of God, we should presume that God does not exist.
Atheism is a sort of default position, and the theist bears a special
burden of proof with regard to his belief that God exists.
So understood, such an alleged presumption is clearly mistaken. For the
assertion that �There is no God� is just as much a claim to knowledge as
is the assertion that �There is a God.� Therefore, the former assertion
requires justification just as the latter does. It is the agnostic who
makes no knowledge claim at all with respect to God�s existence. He
confesses that he doesn�t know whether there is a God or whether there
is no God.
But when you look more closely at how protagonists of the presumption of
atheism used the term �atheist,� you discover that they were defining
But when you look more closely at how protagonists of the presumption of
the word in a non-standard way, synonymous with �non-theist." So
understood the term would encompass agnostics and traditional atheists,
along with those who think the question meaningless (verificationists).
As Antony Flew confesses,
the word �atheist� has in the present context to be construed in an
along with those who think the question meaningless (verificationists).
As Antony Flew confesses,
unusual way. Nowadays it is normally taken to mean someone who
explicitly denies the existence . . . of God . . . But here it has to be
understood not positively but negatively, with the originally Greek
prefix �a-� being read in this same way in �atheist� as it customarily
explicitly denies the existence . . . of God . . . But here it has to be
understood not positively but negatively, with the originally Greek
is in . . . words as �amoral� . . . . In this interpretation an atheist
becomes not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God, but
someone who is simply not a theist. (A Companion to Philosophy of
Religion, ed. Philip Quinn and Charles Taliaferro [Oxford: Blackwell,
1997], s.v. �The Presumption of Atheism,� by Antony Flew)
someone who is simply not a theist. (A Companion to Philosophy of
Religion, ed. Philip Quinn and Charles Taliaferro [Oxford: Blackwell,
Such a re-definition of the word �atheist� trivializes the claim of the
presumption of atheism, for on this definition, atheism ceases to be a
view. It is merely a psychological state which is shared by people who
hold various views or no view at all. On this re-definition, even
babies, who hold no opinion at all on the matter, count as atheists! In
fact, our cat Muff counts as an atheist on this definition, since she
has (to my knowledge) no belief in God.
One would still require justification in order to know either that God
exists or that He does not exist, which is the question we�re really
view. It is merely a psychological state which is shared by people who
hold various views or no view at all. On this re-definition, even
babies, who hold no opinion at all on the matter, count as atheists! In
fact, our cat Muff counts as an atheist on this definition, since she
has (to my knowledge) no belief in God.
One would still require justification in order to know either that God
interested in.
So why, you might wonder, would atheists be anxious to so trivialize
their position? Here I agree with you that a deceptive game is being
played by many atheists. If atheism is taken to be a view, namely the
view that there is no God, then atheists must shoulder their share of
the burden of proof to support this view. But many atheists admit
freely that they cannot sustain such a burden of proof. So they try to
shirk their epistemic responsibility by re-defining atheism so that it
is no longer a view but just a psychological condition which as such
makes no assertions. They are really closet agnostics who want to claim
the mantle of atheism without shouldering its responsibilities.
So why, you might wonder, would atheists be anxious to so trivialize
their position? Here I agree with you that a deceptive game is being
played by many atheists. If atheism is taken to be a view, namely the
view that there is no God, then atheists must shoulder their share of
the burden of proof to support this view. But many atheists admit
freely that they cannot sustain such a burden of proof. So they try to
shirk their epistemic responsibility by re-defining atheism so that it
is no longer a view but just a psychological condition which as such
makes no assertions. They are really closet agnostics who want to claim
the mantle of atheism without shouldering its responsibilities.
(by William Lane Craig, "Reasonable Faith")
Les
Oct 28, 2012, 9:53:58 AM10/28/12
to
On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 07:01:41 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
<calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>Atheists err in claiming that atheism involves only not believing that
>there is a God rather than believing that there is no God.
>
Nope no error for reasons already given by William Craig (see below)
<calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>Atheists err in claiming that atheism involves only not believing that
>there is a God rather than believing that there is no God.
>
He might have only just realised it but we athiest knew long ago.
We await his verifiable evidence there is god as claimed and the
justification for 'reasonable faith' based upon this evidence.
Les Hellawell
Greeting from:
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
knowledge as is the assertion that �There is a God.� Therefore, the
former assertion requires justification just as the latter does. "
- William Lane Craig, "Reasonable Faith"
Calvin Ramsey
Oct 28, 2012, 9:55:05 AM10/28/12
to
Atheists err in claiming that atheism involves only not believing that
there is a God rather than believing that there is no God.
Kelsey Bjarnason
Oct 28, 2012, 7:36:39 PM10/28/12
to
On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 04:29:13 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
<calvin...@live.com> wrote:
> You see, if you do not believe either that God exists, or that He
does
> not exist, then you are an agnostic, no matter how desperately you
want
You correctly identify the issue of belief but then use a term which
<calvin...@live.com> wrote:
> You see, if you do not believe either that God exists, or that He
does
> not exist, then you are an agnostic, no matter how desperately you
want
applies to knowledge rather than belief. Are you being intentionally
dense or do you just not understand the concepts involved ?
Christopher A. Lee
Oct 28, 2012, 7:50:15 PM10/28/12
to
The more than borderline psychopath doesn't seem to understand that
once he's put himself into our personal space, his own position is
irrelevent and ours is the only one that counts.
Especially when he tell us what we "really" believe, and proceeds to
attack that without even listening to us.
Basically he's a thoroughly nasty coward.
If he went to a bar and behaved as he does here, he'd get his face
rearranged pretty quickly by the regulars.
Calvin Ramsey
Oct 28, 2012, 7:55:13 PM10/28/12
to
Calvin Ramsey
Oct 28, 2012, 7:57:01 PM10/28/12
to
On 10/28/2012 7:50 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 16:36:39 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason
> <kbjar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 04:29:13 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
>> <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>>> You see, if you do not believe either that God exists, or that He
>> does
>>> not exist, then you are an agnostic, no matter how desperately you
>> want
>>
>> You correctly identify the issue of belief but then use a term which
>> applies to knowledge rather than belief. Are you being intentionally
>> dense or do you just not understand the concepts involved ?
>
> Deliberately both.
>
> The more than borderline psychopath doesn't seem to understand that
> once he's put himself into our personal space, his own position is
> irrelevent and ours is the only one that counts.
>
> Especially when he tell us what we "really" believe, and proceeds to
> attack that without even listening to us.
>
> Basically he's a thoroughly nasty coward.
No. You just don't like being told you're wrong.
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 16:36:39 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason
> <kbjar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 04:29:13 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
>> <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>>> You see, if you do not believe either that God exists, or that He
>> does
>>> not exist, then you are an agnostic, no matter how desperately you
>> want
>>
>> You correctly identify the issue of belief but then use a term which
>> applies to knowledge rather than belief. Are you being intentionally
>> dense or do you just not understand the concepts involved ?
>
> Deliberately both.
>
> The more than borderline psychopath doesn't seem to understand that
> once he's put himself into our personal space, his own position is
> irrelevent and ours is the only one that counts.
>
> Especially when he tell us what we "really" believe, and proceeds to
> attack that without even listening to us.
>
> Basically he's a thoroughly nasty coward.
>
> If he went to a bar and behaved as he does here, he'd get his face
> rearranged pretty quickly by the regulars.
Any time, any place.
Syd M.
Oct 28, 2012, 7:57:52 PM10/28/12
to
On Oct 28, 7:01 am, Calvin Ramsey <calvinlram...@live.com> wrote:
> Atheists err in claiming that atheism involves only not believing that
> there is a God rather than believing that there is no God.
>
>
It is still NOT true, no matter how many times you repost this,
> Atheists err in claiming that atheism involves only not believing that
> there is a God rather than believing that there is no God.
>
>
smirking loser.
Syd M.
Oct 28, 2012, 8:03:26 PM10/28/12
to
On Oct 28, 7:50 pm, Christopher A. Lee <chrislee95...@comcast.net>
wrote:
Which is why he acts this way here.
We can't do anything like that to the little coward.
wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 16:36:39 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason
>
>
We can't do anything like that to the little coward.
RedDog
Oct 28, 2012, 8:07:59 PM10/28/12
to
Kelsey Bjarnason
Oct 30, 2012, 3:40:39 AM10/30/12
to
On Sun, 28 Oct 2012 19:55:13 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
that doesn't speak well of you, does it?
<calvin...@live.com> wrote:
> On 10/28/2012 7:36 PM, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 04:29:13 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
> > <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
> >> You see, if you do not believe either that God exists, or that He
> > does
> >> not exist, then you are an agnostic, no matter how desperately
you
> > want
> >
> > You correctly identify the issue of belief but then use a term
which
> > applies to knowledge rather than belief. Are you being
intentionally
> > dense or do you just not understand the concepts involved ?
> It's very plain to me that you don't know what you're talking about.
Yet you ate the one unable to get relatively simple terms correct;
> On 10/28/2012 7:36 PM, Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
> > On Fri, 26 Oct 2012 04:29:13 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
> > <calvin...@live.com> wrote:
> >> You see, if you do not believe either that God exists, or that He
> > does
> >> not exist, then you are an agnostic, no matter how desperately
you
> > want
> >
> > You correctly identify the issue of belief but then use a term
which
> > applies to knowledge rather than belief. Are you being
intentionally
> > dense or do you just not understand the concepts involved ?
> It's very plain to me that you don't know what you're talking about.
that doesn't speak well of you, does it?
Calvin Ramsey
Oct 30, 2012, 4:03:48 AM10/30/12
to
Look up the word "agnostic", and shut up.
Kelsey Bjarnason
Nov 3, 2012, 9:12:02 PM11/3/12
to
On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 04:03:48 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
<calvin...@live.com> wrote:
> Look up the word "agnostic", and shut up.
It means "without gnosis" where "gnosis" equates to knowledge. As
<calvin...@live.com> wrote:
> Look up the word "agnostic", and shut up.
it relates here it means not knowing whether a god or gods exist.
One need not claim to know gods exist in order to believe in them...
nor does one need to know they do not exist in order to lack belief.
Those positions would be atheism and atheism respectively.
Now, since the only one here confused is you perhaps you could at
least pretend robe capable of learning and apply the information
provided.
Or would you prefer to keep getting simple things wrong and looking
stupid?
Budikka666
Nov 4, 2012, 7:05:01 AM11/4/12
to
Coward-For-Christ™ Calvin Ramsey Denying Christ Thrice:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/
e789f4adad4e8fad?scoring=d&
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/
thread/5ddc9354493b62b3?scoring=d&
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/
thread/5cfb83a18dbc7442?scoring=d&
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/
e789f4adad4e8fad?scoring=d&
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/
thread/5ddc9354493b62b3?scoring=d&
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/
thread/5cfb83a18dbc7442?scoring=d&
Les
Nov 4, 2012, 9:03:48 AM11/4/12
to
On Sat, 03 Nov 2012 18:12:02 -0700, Kelsey Bjarnason
<kbjar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 04:03:48 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
><calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>> Look up the word "agnostic", and shut up.
>
>It means "without gnosis" where "gnosis" equates to knowledge. As
>it relates here it means not knowing whether a god or gods exist.
I actually quoted the meaning of 'gnostic' from a dictionary and the
<kbjar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Oct 2012 04:03:48 -0400, Calvin Ramsey
><calvin...@live.com> wrote:
>> Look up the word "agnostic", and shut up.
>
>It means "without gnosis" where "gnosis" equates to knowledge. As
>it relates here it means not knowing whether a god or gods exist.
meaning and use of the prefix a- is clear and well understood. Perhaps
English is not Ramseys first language?
>
>One need not claim to know gods exist in order to believe in them...
>nor does one need to know they do not exist in order to lack belief.
>
>Those positions would be atheism and atheism respectively.
never mentioned Agnostics and what they believe. I was discussing the
term 'gnostic' (of knowledge) and being without knowledge (agnostic)
as you say.
The Agnostic goes beyond discussing present knowledge about gods
to asserting that it is impossible to prove a god exists (an
assertion of fact that is not in evidence). Since this assertion
is not in evidence I am not *an* Agnostic but *am* agnostic (without
knowledge of) gods which theist claim but have yet to demonstrate the
truth of.
>Now, since the only one here confused is you perhaps you could at
>least pretend robe capable of learning and apply the information
>provided.
>
>Or would you prefer to keep getting simple things wrong and looking
>stupid?
0 new messages