Del: Lewis atheist?
Ben Goren
``"Unbelieving nation": YouGov/DailyTelegraph Survey Results...''
may have noticed that Del has accused me of being a fundy
pretending to be an atheist.
His premise is simple: no true atheist could possibly be as
certain as I am in God's non-existence, and my obnoxiousness is an
act to put theists off of atheism.
I doubt anybody who's familiar with my posts would take such
accusations seriously, but, just in case, I think these two posts
alone are more than enough to put the lie to Del's libel:
Now that that's taken care of, Del's accusations have caused me to
consider the nature of his own atheism. He's seen fit to share his
analysis of me with the world, so I figure it's only fair if I do
the same.
First, I should start with some definitions. As I use the terms, a
gnostic is somebody who has come to a conclusive determination on
a matter, and an agnostic is somebody who has not (but may still
hold a belief or an opinion); a theist is somebody whose worldview
includes the reality of one or more gods, and an atheist is
somebody whose worldview does not include the reality of any gods.
Using these definitions, I would classify Del as an agnostic
atheist, and I do not think Del will object to this
classification. Del does not believe in God or gods, but he has
not made a conclusive determination on the matter. All who know me
should have no trouble figuring out that I am a gnostic atheist.
However, as we all know, atheists and agnostics come in all sorts
of flavors. It's worth probing the matter a bit deeper, I think.
In particular, there are two broad types of agnostics: those who
have yet to make a conclusion on the matter, and those who
dogmatically believe that no conclusion is possible. Del is,
undoubtedly, the latter type:
I especially call your attention to this snippet:
> The fact is that you can't "know" that there is no god of any
> description anywhere in the universe. Pretend otherwise if it
> makes you feel secure, but don't try to pawn it off on us
> rational folk.
I would again refer you to my conversation with Mr. Raymond
Griffith where I thoroughly demonstrate the impossibility of
all the essential characteristics of every god every proposed:
omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, primal causality, and
even simple supernaturality.
Del does not merely say, ``I do not know,'' but instead,
``Knowledge is impossible.'' And I've yet to hear an even slightly
convincing argument as to why that should be so. Often, it boils
down to, ``An omnipotent god could hide from us if he wanted
to.'' Indeed, Del's argument is much the same:
> That's right. "God" is undefined. You refuse to define it
> because you know you can't successfully do it. You try
> to define it in negative terms--as something not like us:
> omnipotent, omniscient--attributes you have never come in
> contact with. But you can't define something by saying what it
> is not. Ergo you have never defined what it is you think you've
> disproven.
Never mind, of course, that all the omni- properties are easily
defined as something that encompasses the entirety of its
domain. Using Del's logic, humans are unable to define something
such as the largest prime number--yet that didn't stop Euclid from
proving that there is no such beast.
I have often wondered where such fierce dogmatic insistence--nay,
faith, for that is truly what it is--on the inherent mystery of
the nature of God comes from. In Del, I think, I have at last
found at least one reasonable explanation.
Pardon me--it's been a few decades since I've done this. Let me
see if I get it right.
<ahem>
DEL and JEsus HANGing on a CROSS--
PEE are EH why EYE en GEE!
FIRST comes FAITH, THEN beLIEF;
THEN comes the LOVE of the VIRgin MAry!
Well, it's a bit broken, but I think you get the idea.
No, this is not a baseless accusation. I believe that Del honestly
respects the character of Jesus as portrayed in the Bible. It was
a note he posted in another thread this morning that clued me in:
This is hardly a unique example. Here are some more, dating back
the better part of a decade:
This admiration is not necessarily a bad thing; the Jesus
character really did have some good things to say. Imagine, for a
moment, if President Bush had stood upon the rubble of the World
Trade Center and recited from the Sermon on the Mount.
But, what was most peculiar to me, was the way that Del leapt to
Jesus' defense in that first note above. Only somebody with an
emotional involvement would be likely to do so. Truly, I do not
think that Del's mental image of Jesus includes things such as the
condemnation of all non-believers to eternal torture, or the
needless torture and slaughter of a herd of pigs.
And, so, with this realization, I think I can now accurately
describe Del.
Del is, in my admittedly unproven opinion, a C.S. Lewis
atheist. That is, he probably grew up in a decidedly Christian
environment where it was a given that Jesus is the best human
being who ever lived. Del stopped buying into the religion at some
point--maybe early, maybe later--for whatever reason. I'd be
surprised if he's not fed up with the church itself--and most
rightly so, I must add. He certainly doesn't buy into the Old
Testament bullshit, and I very much doubt he buys into the New
Testament miracles. But he still thinks that Jesus was an okay
guy, really. Somewhere in Del's mind, I suspect, is the unproven
suspicion that there really was an itinerant preacher named
``Jesus'' who was the foundation for the New Testament stories.
In short, Del currently holds much the same position towards God
and Jesus as C.S. Lewis did during his own atheist phase.
What I'm curious to see is what comes next for Del. Will he buy
back into the myth, as Lewis did? Will he come up with his own
version of ``Liar, Lunatic, or Lord''? Or will he stop insisting
on limiting his own mental capabilities? Can he bring himself to
concede the Jesus character's flaws, and what would that do to his
mental image of Jesus Himself? Or will he stay firm in the
faith he holds today that God is Forever Unknowable?
Or perhaps might Del even turn out like Phillip Williams of
societopia.net fame, who almost certainly went through a similar
atheistic phase?
Stay tuned and find out. But...one thing's for certain: payback
sucks, my fun Del bitch.
Cheers,
b&
--
BAAWA Knight of Blasphemy
God can never prove that this sentence is true.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Hellbound Alleee
There's a nice FAQ he can look at, which I'm sure would answer many of
his questions.
Hellbound Alleee
................................................................
Listen to the Hellbound Alleee Show at http://www.hellboundalleee.com
................................................................
igtheist
Ben Goren wrote:
> Those of you who might have been following along in the thread,
> ``"Unbelieving nation": YouGov/DailyTelegraph Survey Results...''
> may have noticed that Del has accused me of being a fundy
> pretending to be an atheist.
With these words you've convinced me that you are atheist of some
stripe or another. I also enjoyed reading it. It's rare I get a
new angle on my atheism and this is the first time that I heard of
applying Godel to God. Bravo!
As for Del. I haven't much experience with him except that he has
misread my own posts and imputed positions to me that I don't hold.
He even when so far as to claim that I was making a straw man argument
against him when I wasn't. I guess that is a meta-straw man argument
which would be a fallacy on his part. Plus in my case he kept
claiming I wasn't making arguments in the middle of my arguments.
Claiming I was just asserting things for which I had plenty of posts up
arguing my points. It's one thing to argue I am wrong but to just lie
and claim no argument was made is another thing. Is this his modus
operandi with you? I finally got fed up with this and just cut and
pasted his claim back at him. I'm thinking he is a troll himself.
"That is Kurt Godel's (second) Incompleteness Theorem, applied to
God himself. For though the sentence is itself true, God can
never prove it. (If God were to prove that the sentence is true,
he would, in so doing, instead prove it false and thus be forced
to start over again.)
This is an impossible action, even for God. It is the stone he
cannot lift; the burrito he cannot microwave to an uneatable
temperature. It establishes that, no matter how powerful God may
be, there will always be a limit to his power.
Thus the limitless is limited, and the omnipotent rendered
impossible.
Because God is constrained by the Incompleteness Theorem, he
is (provably) also unable to solve Alan Turing's Halting
Problem. There is that which even God cannot know and thus no
omniscient mind.
Let us suppose that God, though not truly omnipotent, is so
powerful as makes no difference. Let us also assume that God is
omnibenevolent, pure love, incapable by his very nature of evil.
The question immediately arises: why does God tolerate evil? Being
supremely powerful, surely he must be capable of stopping evil.
The standard answer, of course, is that, to put an end to evil
would be to rob humanity of its free will.
But, if humanity has free will, then surely God must have free
will as well. And we've already established that God has a good
moral nature incapable of evil; therefore such a moral nature
cannot be incompatible with free will.
So why, then, when God created man in his own image, did God give
man God's own free will but not God's own good moral nature
incapable of evil? Or, upon observing evil in man, why does God
not ``use his omnipotence'' to grant such a nature to man after
the fact?
If it is because God is incapable, then he is not only not
omnipotent but lacks the very power that must be most dear to a
moral being: to end evil.
If it is because God chooses not to, then he cannot be a moral
being, for he would then be the ultimate cause, the ultimate and
unnecessary source of all evil.
Finally, to the question of Creation. We've been discussing the
set theory tune; permit me to use the First Cause variation of the
theme.
Let us assume that all events must have causes, and that no event
can be its own cause.
The universe--or existence, if you prefer--is demonstrably an
effect, and, per our assumption, demands a cause. Let's call this
cause, ``God.''
But our assumption demands that God, himself, must have a
cause. Let's call this cause, ``Grand-God.''
And our assumption similarly demands that Grand-God have a cause,
``Great-Grand-God,'' and so on infinitely.
At this point, a curious observation is to be made. We have, here,
an endlessly regressing line of creators creating creators, but
this effect itself can have no cause. Having reached the ultimate
conclusion of our exercise, we discover that our original premise
is, in fact, incorrect.
Therefore, there are events which do not have causes, or possibly
events which cause themselves. Before we can proclaim ``God'' as
the necessary cause of existence, we must first determine that
existence itself needs a cause. And, as our previous discussions
have illustrated, existence is perfectly happy without a cause.
To sum: there is no all-powerful force in the universe; no
all-knowing mind; no all-loving guardian; and it all ``just is.''
Doesn't leave much room for God, eh? "
> His premise is simple: no true atheist could possibly be as
> certain as I am in God's non-existence, and my obnoxiousness is an
> act to put theists off of atheism.
>From what I have seen of his reasoning powers he probably thinks this
is a valid argument.
I am certain of my atheism of the Christian God and the Islamic Allah,
based on the old testament I am certain there is no Jewish Yahweh.
In fact of every religion I know where a clear conception of their god
is put for I can say for certain that that god does not exist.
I call myself igtheist so that those theists who have proposed a god so
unclearly that I cannot understand them cannot jump up on their soapbox
and scream "Hey look, I proposed X so unclearly that Igtheist should
not be able to even identify what I am talking about. Yet he claims
such a thing doesn't exist. How can he I haven't provided enough
information to identify it? Thus, igtheist is jumping to conclusions.
How illogical of him."
jfa...@earthlink.net
Ben Gorem wrote:
> Those of you who might have been following along in the thread,
> ``"Unbelieving nation": YouGov/DailyTelegraph Survey Results...''
> may have noticed that Del has accused me of being a fundy
> pretending to be an atheist.
>
> certain as I am in God's non-existence
All this lying just because you refuse to clean up your
act, fundy?
>and my obno xiousness is an
> act to put thiests off of atheism.
If there is nothing to the charge why are you forced to
lie about me and what I said as you do right here?
You can't even bring yourself to articulate the charges
against you: You are dishonest. That is your problem.
My problem is you practicing your di shonesty while
telling everyone you are an atheist and or spokesmodel
for atheism.
Isn't that just what a stealth fundy would do? Yes or no?
I bet you're even afraid to answer this question. I'm sure
you will prove me right on this.
What is pathetic is that instead of cleaning up your act
and begin to practice what you preach, you think that
lying about me will stop me from telling the truth
about you. I guess you'll find out the hard way.
> I doubt anybody who's familiar with my posts would take such
> accusations seriously,
And yet I notice you stay far away from the evidence
and you've been unable to deny any of it.
If you were innocent you would try to prove it instead
of what you do now which is to desperately try to
deflect attention away from yourself.
<pathetic red herring snipped>
I
Ben Goren
> Ben Goren wrote:
>
>> Those of you who might have been following along in the
>> thread, ``"Unbelieving nation": YouGov/DailyTelegraph Survey
>> Results...'' may have noticed that Del has accused me of being
>> a fundy pretending to be an atheist.
>
> With these words you've convinced me that you are atheist of
> some stripe or another. I also enjoyed reading it. It's rare I
> get a new angle on my atheism and this is the first time that I
> heard of applying Godel to God. Bravo!
Thank you. I must admit, I /am/ a bit proud of it, myself. As
always, though, I'm just standing on the shoulders of giants.
Turtles all the way down, baby--turtles!
> As for Del. I haven't much experience with him except that he
> has misread my own posts and imputed positions to me that I
> don't hold. He even when so far as to claim that I was making a
> straw man argument against him when I wasn't. I guess that is a
> meta-straw man argument which would be a fallacy on his
> part. Plus in my case he kept claiming I wasn't making
> arguments in the middle of my arguments. Claiming I was just
> asserting things for which I had plenty of posts up arguing my
> points. It's one thing to argue I am wrong but to just lie and
> claim no argument was made is another thing. Is this his modus
> operandi with you? I finally got fed up with this and just cut
> and pasted his claim back at him. I'm thinking he is a troll
> himself.
That's all consistent with my observations, yes. Indeed, it's
quite curious how he uses the favorite tactics of theists against
atheists in his very own ``arguments'' with atheists: straw men,
goalpost shifting, shameless redefinition, projection....
> "That is Kurt Godel's (second) Incompleteness Theorem, applied
> to God himself [. . . .]"
>
>> His premise is simple: no true atheist could possibly be as
>> certain as I am in God's non-existence, and my obnoxiousness is
>> an act to put theists off of atheism.
>
> From what I have seen of his reasoning powers he probably thinks
> this is a valid argument.
Quite possibly. Or, it may well be projection.
> I am certain of my atheism of the Christian God and the Islamic
> Allah, based on the old testament I am certain there is no
> Jewish Yahweh.
>
> In fact of every religion I know where a clear conception of
> their god is put for I can say for certain that that god does
> not exist.
>
> I call myself igtheist so that those theists who have proposed a
> god so unclearly that I cannot understand them cannot jump up on
> their soapbox and scream "Hey look, I proposed X so unclearly
> that Igtheist should not be able to even identify what I am
> talking about. Yet he claims such a thing doesn't exist. How
> can he I haven't provided enough information to identify
> it? Thus, igtheist is jumping to conclusions. How illogical of
> him."
Sounds like fun. Have you been blessed enough to make the
acquaintance of the Invisible Pink Unicorn (MHHNBS)?
Ben Goren
> If you were innocent you would try to prove it instead of what
> you do now which is to desperately try to deflect attention away
> from yourself.
>
> <pathetic red herring snipped>
*Very* /good,/ doggie! You found the treat I buried for you. Now,
show me how much you love me by yapping as *LOUD* as you can, my
fun Del bitch!
Scott Campbell
> Ben Gorem wrote:
[...] Is Ben a Trojan horse?
> My problem is you practicing your di shonesty while
> telling everyone you are an atheist and or spokesmodel
> for atheism.
I've only been posting here (talk.atheism) for a couple of
weeks now but I've never seen Ben claim to be a spokesman
for anything. I've only seen him post his own opinions -
opinions you may not like or that you feel damage the image
of an atheist - but I've never witnessed him claim to be speaking
on the behalf of anyone but himself. And since it's _you_ who
is making the case that an atheist needs to post their thoughts
a certain way - doesn't that make _you_ the one who is a
"spokesmodel" on behalf of atheism?
--
Scott Campbell
Ben Goren
In case you're wondering, the term for what you're describing is
``projection.'' One wonders just what else Del is projecting....
igtheist
Ben Goren wrote:
> That's all consistent with my observations, yes. Indeed, it's
> quite curious how he uses the favorite tactics of theists against
> atheists in his very own ``arguments'' with atheists: straw men,
> goalpost shifting, shameless redefinition, projection....
OK. Deja vu all over again.
> Sounds like fun. Have you been blessed enough to make the
> acquaintance of the Invisible Pink Unicorn (MHHNBS)?
Yeah, I'm an old fart whose in his mid-forties. It's rare I come
across truly new info. I visited the IPU site once. I usually use
leprachauns instead of the IPU to debate.
Ben Goren
> Ben Goren wrote:
>
>> That's all consistent with my observations, yes. Indeed,
>> it's quite curious how he uses the favorite tactics of
>> theists against atheists in his very own ``arguments'' with
>> atheists: straw men, goalpost shifting, shameless redefinition,
>> projection....
>
> OK. Deja vu all over again.
Yup. You can even see echos of it in the post Stix used to justify
giving Del a BAAWA knighthood.
>> Sounds like fun. Have you been blessed enough to make the
>> acquaintance of the Invisible Pink Unicorn (MHHNBS)?
>
> Yeah, I'm an old fart whose in his mid-forties.
I don't know that I'd so so far as to call ``mid-forties'' the
realm of old-fartdom. Hell, I've only got a decade to go til I'm
there, myself....
> It's rare I come across truly new info. I visited the IPU site
> once. I usually use leprachauns instead of the IPU to debate.
Well, I suppose we do all have a bear to cross. I'll stick with
ham and pineapple pizza myself, thankyouverymuch.
D-word
<respectfully snipped for brevity and relevance, I have argument with
the definitions.>
> First, I should start with some definitions. As I use the terms, a
> gnostic is somebody who has come to a conclusive determination on
> a matter, and an agnostic is somebody who has not (but may still
> hold a belief or an opinion); a theist is somebody whose worldview
> includes the reality of one or more gods, and an atheist is
> somebody whose worldview does not include the reality of any gods.
[Ben Goren wrote: "...an atheist is somebody whose worldview does not
include the reality of any gods."]
Which implies, therefore that they reject as true the existence of any
god or gods of which they they have present knowledge as well as the
possibility of such gods. I have noticed that many atheists
like to avoid "rejecting theism" for some yet undetermined reason, but
it is a logical necessity of the atheist position and belief, without
which they would by definition be theists (or agnostics).
I think that atheists like to align themselves with the more rational,
defensible position of agnosticism, without having to respect the
possibility of theism. It is a "have your cake, and eat it to" hypocrisy.
[Ben Goren wrote: "Using these definitions, I would classify Del as
an agnostic atheist, and I do not think Del will object to this
classification."]
I do object to it, however. Loath though I am to enter into what has
been in the past a lengthy and futile discussion with a number of people
here who have proven intractable on this matter (Jess, et al), I am more
disinclined to allow terms which are both apt and precise to be co-opted
by those who lack clear understanding, thereby changing their meaning.
> Del does not believe in God or gods, but he has
> not made a conclusive determination on the matter. All who know me
> should have no trouble figuring out that I am a gnostic atheist.
>
> However, as we all know, atheists and agnostics come in all sorts
> of flavors. It's worth probing the matter a bit deeper, I think.
[Ben Goren wrote: "a gnostic is somebody who has come to a conclusive
determination on a matter, and an agnostic is somebody who has not (but
may still hold a belief or an opinion)."]
A "Gnostic" is not the antonym for agnostic. A Gnostic is a religious
term meaning an adherent of Gnosticism. "One who seeks 'gnosis'," a
term that Huxley uses parenthetically. (It is even pronounced
differently, the "G" is silent). Agnostic, on the other hand, was coined
by Huxley specifically with regard to the matter of existence. It too
cannot be generalized. You have used both words incorrectly here.
Agnostics don't hold irrational belief. If they did, they wouldn't be
agnostics, but either theists, or atheists, depending on which side of
the belief paradigm they fall. Agnostics do not make a certain judgment
on the matter, absent evidence, some aren't even certain that such
matters are knowable. That is not to say that an agnostic does not
also, for example, reject Jesus as "god." No credible empirical evidence
has ever existed to support the claim that Jesus is a god. The common
logical trap that many atheists fall into here is to assume that such
agnostics are are therefore atheists, but this is incorrect. Atheists
are closed to belief and Agnostics are not.
[Ben Goren wrote: "...there are two broad types of agnostics: those who
have yet to make a conclusion on the matter, and those who
dogmatically believe that no conclusion is possible."]
Actually, you are wrong here about "dogmatic agnosticism." Dogma comes
from certain knowledge, the belief in absolute truth. I have never
personally met a "certain" agnostic, it is antithetical. I defer to Huxley:
"That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth
of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically
justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my
opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism." --Huxley
"All that is essential to agnosticism," is in part, logically, a
rejection of dogma. If something is said to be true absolutely it is
dogma, whereas if it is true, it is just truth. To wit, Huxley has
described Agnosticism as the belief that judgment without empirical
evidence is illogical. This is anything but dogmatic certainty. Can
uncertainty be dogmatic? You are misusing the word. It is theists and
atheists that claim to possess "absolute truth."
Again, Huxley:
"When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself whether I
was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist;
a Christian or a freethinker, I found that the more I learned and
reflected, the less ready was the answer; until at last I came to the
conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these
denominations, except the last. [freethinker]
"The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the
one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure that they
had attained a certain "gnosis" -- had more or less successfully solved
the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a
pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with Hume
and Kant on my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding
fast by that opinion." [...]
So Huxley defined himself as a freethinker, one who rejects dogma, and
an agnostic, one who rejects conviction without justified evidence. The
only thing he insists on is that proof precedes belief.
[Ben Goren wrote: "Using these definitions, I would classify Del as an
agnostic theist."]
Using the above definitions (Huxley's) I would classify your use of the
term "agnostic atheist" as contradictory and illogical.
One cannot be an "agnostic atheist." One rejects conviction (belief)
without true knowledge, and the other has dogmatic belief
regarding that which can't logically be proven and has yet to be
demonstrated, the "certain knowledge" that there is no god or gods.
Agnosticism is a rejection of both theism and atheism
equally. Therefore, the two can't exist in the same logical plane of
one's being.
Hellbound Alleee
"atheism") and do not hold "certain knowledge" of anything. Care to
rephrase your little diatribe there ?
According to strongatheism.net, strong atheism is "the proposition that
we should not suspend judgment about the non-existence of God or gods".
Nothing about "certain knowledge" there..But it is explicitly opposed
to agnosticism. Atheism (the lack of belief in God or gods) isn't.
Ron Peterson
D-word wrote:
> Ben Goren wrote:
> > First, I should start with some definitions. As I use the terms, a
> > gnostic is somebody who has come to a conclusive determination on
> > a matter, and an agnostic is somebody who has not (but may still
> > hold a belief or an opinion); a theist is somebody whose worldview
> > includes the reality of one or more gods, and an atheist is
> > somebody whose worldview does not include the reality of any gods.
> Which implies, therefore that they reject as true the existence of any
> god or gods of which they they have present knowledge as well as the
> possibility of such gods. I have noticed that many atheists
> like to avoid "rejecting theism" for some yet undetermined reason, but
> it is a logical necessity of the atheist position and belief, without
> which they would by definition be theists (or agnostics).
I have seen, in this news group, an atheist defined as a person who
isn't an atheist. It's an attractive definition in that it does require
one to define what a god is because it varies for each theism.
You are right that some atheists won't reject theism and even claim
that theisms are a benefit to humanity. I don't see how those atheists
are appreciably different from theists.
--
Ron
Ben Goren
> Ben Goren wrote:
>
> <respectfully snipped for brevity and relevance, I have argument
> with the definitions.>
Fair enough. It seems rather clear that you identify yourself as a
Capital-A-Agnostic in the tradition of Huxley. Is it not true that
you are also without theism? If so, then you are also an atheist.
Just as you probably wouldn't say that a dog has three legs,
when it in fact also has four legs, you probably wouldn't
want to identify yourself as an agnostic atheist outside of a
rigidly-defined context. I /tried/ to present such a context here;
that you didn't pick up on it implies a failure on my part.
Grant for me a moment the right to shamelessly redefine these
terms. No, I'm not asking you to adopt the new definitions for
yourself; just that you acknowledge that it is what these terms
mean to /me./ Without accepting the validity of the application of
my definitions to the terms, do you concede that I have used these
freshly-redefined terms consistently and accurately?
> Agnostics don't hold irrational belief. If they did, they
> wouldn't be agnostics, but either theists, or atheists,
> depending on which side of the belief paradigm they fall.
> Agnostics do not make a certain judgment on the matter, absent
> evidence, some aren't even certain that such matters are
> knowable.
And some, like Del, /are/ certain that such matters are
/un/knowable. This is an irrational belief and it is the
``dogmatic agnosticism'' I refer to:
> [Ben Goren wrote: "...there are two broad types of agnostics:
> those who have yet to make a conclusion on the matter, and those
> who dogmatically believe that no conclusion is possible."]
>
> Actually, you are wrong here about "dogmatic agnosticism."
> Dogma comes from certain knowledge, the belief in absolute
> truth. I have never personally met a "certain" agnostic, it is
> antithetical.
Then D-word, please meet Del; Del, D-word.
I support my assertion with Del's own words as I cited in the note
at the top of the thread:
> The fact is that you can't "know" that there is no god of any
> description anywhere in the universe. Pretend otherwise if it
> makes you feel secure, but don't try to pawn it off on us
> rational folk.
And from the same note:
> That's right. "God" is undefined. You refuse to define it
> because you know you can't successfully do it. You try
> to define it in negative terms--as something not like us:
> omnipotent, omniscient--attributes you have never come in
> contact with. But you can't define something by saying what it
> is not. Ergo you have never defined what it is you think you've
> disproven.
This is dogma, insisting not that God is unknown, as Huxley would
assert, but that God is unknowable.
Perhaps you can talk some sense into Del.
Richo
igtheist wrote:
>
> "That is Kurt Godel's (second) Incompleteness Theorem, applied to
> God himself. For though the sentence is itself true, God can
> never prove it. (If God were to prove that the sentence is true,
> he would, in so doing, instead prove it false and thus be forced
> to start over again.)
>
Please note this is Not Godels 2nd incompleteness Theorem.
It's a sentence which represents a logical paradox.
>
> This is an impossible action, even for God.
Yes. AND It is not anything at all to do with Godel.
> It is the stone he
> cannot lift; the burrito he cannot microwave to an uneatable
> temperature. It establishes that, no matter how powerful God may
> be, there will always be a limit to his power.
>
Particularly if he doesnt exist.
8-)
>
> Thus the limitless is limited, and the omnipotent rendered
> impossible.
>
Only by defining Omnipotent in a differnt way to theologians.
They define it as the ability to do any action that is not logically
impossible. So failing to do that which is logically impossible is not
a problem for omniscience as defined by the catholic church, for
example.
So you just kicked a strawman.
8-)
>
> Because God is constrained by the Incompleteness Theorem,
A self referential statement is not the Incompleteness Theorem.
People make this mistake because Godels original proof of the theorem
involved a self referential statement that could be encoded and fed
back into the theorem.
It is possible to prove the 2nd IT WITHOUT using a self referential
statement.
(Hardly surprising as there are often more than one way to prove a
mathematical theorem.)
Cheers,
Mark.
Richo
Ben Goren wrote:
> Those of you who might have been following along in the thread,
> ``"Unbelieving nation": YouGov/DailyTelegraph Survey Results...''
> may have noticed that Del has accused me of being a fundy
> pretending to be an atheist.
>
He mentioned it as a possibility.
> His premise is simple: no true atheist could possibly be as
> certain as I am in God's non-existence, and my obnoxiousness is an
> act to put theists off of atheism.
>
You wouldnt put words in his mouth would you?
<Snip>
> Now that that's taken care of, Del's accusations have caused me to
> consider the nature of his own atheism. He's seen fit to share his
> analysis of me with the world, so I figure it's only fair if I do
> the same.
>
> First, I should start with some definitions. As I use the terms, a
> gnostic is somebody who has come to a conclusive determination on
> a matter, and an agnostic is somebody who has not (but may still
> hold a belief or an opinion);
Thire is actually an interesting point that you seem unaware of...
"Gnostic" refers to a christian cult persecuted by the early church.
The Gnostics were a christian "mystery" cult.
Mystery cults involve secret "knowledge" and the deeper you progress
into the cult the more "knowledge" is revealed to you.
You didnt save your soul through good deeds or works but by recieving
these secrets.
This is a completely different kind of "knowledge" that Huxley was
talking about when he coined the term "agnostic".
Huxley (and Ben Goren) are talking about empirical, factual knowledge.
A Huxley agnostic is saying either :
(1) It is not possible to have imperical factual knowledge about the
existence or reality of God or any kind of ultimate reality. (Strong
version)
(2) I dont have any imperical factual knowledge about the existence of
God or any kind of ultimate reality. (weak version)
So It is entirely possible to be an agnostic Gnostic.
As they are traditionlly defined - (Ben is of course free to present
his own definitions and we are free to use them.)
That's all I wanted to say for the moment- off to read the Thread where
Del pissed Ben off to see who is the good guy and who is the baddy.
(I see Jeffrey Goldberg's there too - he is a smart cookie - should be
fun)
Back in a tick...
Mark.
Richo
D-word wrote:
> Ben Goren wrote:
>
> > First, I should start with some definitions. As I use the terms, a
> > gnostic is somebody who has come to a conclusive determination on
> > a matter, and an agnostic is somebody who has not (but may still
> > hold a belief or an opinion); a theist is somebody whose worldview
> > includes the reality of one or more gods, and an atheist is
> > somebody whose worldview does not include the reality of any gods.
>
> [Ben Goren wrote: "...an atheist is somebody whose worldview does not
> include the reality of any gods."]
>
>
> Which implies, therefore that they reject as true the existence of any
> god or gods of which they they have present knowledge as well as the
> possibility of such gods.
I think you go too far.
All that is *required* for atheism is disbelief - there is no
requirement for that disbelief to be certain or absolute.
I am a non believer and I reject the notion of certainty in knowledge
outside of Logic and formal systems like mathematics.
I am an unusual/atypical godless person in that:
I reject as true the existence of some gods - for example God and Zeus-
while rejecting *belief in*/faith in/devotion to /worship off ALL gods
- including the ones that I know for certain existed (eg The Roman
Emperor Augustus).
That is I am an infidel with respect to all gods - no matter what may
or may not exist.
> I have noticed that many atheists
> like to avoid "rejecting theism" for some yet undetermined reason, but
> it is a logical necessity of the atheist position and belief, without
> which they would by definition be theists (or agnostics).
>
There is no necessary conflict between atheism and agnosticism.
> I think that atheists like to align themselves with the more rational,
> defensible position of agnosticism, without having to respect the
> possibility of theism. It is a "have your cake, and eat it to" hypocrisy.
>
I am quite certain theism exists - I dont deny the existence of theism
- I have seen churches and even been inside a few.
>
> [Ben Goren wrote: "Using these definitions, I would classify Del as
> an agnostic atheist, and I do not think Del will object to this
> classification."]
>
>
> I do object to it, however. Loath though I am to enter into what has
> been in the past a lengthy and futile discussion with a number of people
> here who have proven intractable on this matter (Jess, et al), I am more
> disinclined to allow terms which are both apt and precise to be co-opted
> by those who lack clear understanding, thereby changing their meaning.
>
Sounds very noble.
if you find any such occurances I back you up %100.
8-)
> > Del does not believe in God or gods, but he has
> > not made a conclusive determination on the matter. All who know me
> > should have no trouble figuring out that I am a gnostic atheist.
> >
> > However, as we all know, atheists and agnostics come in all sorts
> > of flavors. It's worth probing the matter a bit deeper, I think.
>
>
> [Ben Goren wrote: "a gnostic is somebody who has come to a conclusive
> determination on a matter, and an agnostic is somebody who has not (but
> may still hold a belief or an opinion)."]
>
>
> A "Gnostic" is not the antonym for agnostic. A Gnostic is a religious
> term meaning an adherent of Gnosticism. "One who seeks 'gnosis'," a
> term that Huxley uses parenthetically. (It is even pronounced
> differently, the "G" is silent). Agnostic, on the other hand, was coined
> by Huxley specifically with regard to the matter of existence. It too
> cannot be generalized. You have used both words incorrectly here.
>
Good - I pointed out the same thing.
So Ben is not using Gnostic (with a capital G)in the traditional sense.
He has invented a new term which he takes to be the antinynm of
agnosticism - confussing I know - but not a dissaster if all involved
understand what *he* means by the term.
Words are symbols which may be redefined as necessary.
> Agnostics don't hold irrational belief.
Whoa! That is a sweeping generalization if ever I saw one.
>If they did, they wouldn't be
> agnostics,
Why not? As long as they fullfill the definition they remain agnostics
no matter how irrational they are surely.
Isn't this "immunity to irrationality" akin to some kind of superpower?
I dont believe in such wild claims - certainly not without evidence and
argument.
> [Ben Goren wrote: "...there are two broad types of agnostics: those who
> have yet to make a conclusion on the matter, and those who
> dogmatically believe that no conclusion is possible."]
>
>
> Actually, you are wrong here about "dogmatic agnosticism."
No - He is right on this one.
> Dogma comes
> from certain knowledge, the belief in absolute truth. I have never
> personally met a "certain" agnostic
I have. And conversed with many on usenet over the years.
> I defer to Huxley:
>
> "That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth
> of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically
> justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my
> opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism." --Huxley
>
Yeah but he was at times inconsistent - just 'cause someone tells you
they are perfect it doesnt mean they are.
> "All that is essential to agnosticism," is in part, logically, a
> rejection of dogma. If something is said to be true absolutely it is
> dogma, whereas if it is true, it is just truth. To wit, Huxley has
> described Agnosticism as the belief that judgment without empirical
> evidence is illogical. This is anything but dogmatic certainty. Can
> uncertainty be dogmatic? You are misusing the word. It is theists and
> atheists that claim to possess "absolute truth."
>
Atheist don't have to claim absolute truth - some like Ben Goren do -
most just dont believe the claims of Theists.
Check all the dictionary definitions you can lay your hands on -
certainty is not part of the definition of atheist.
Yours is a common misconception.
Cheers, Mark.
Ben Goren
>> Thus the limitless is limited, and the omnipotent rendered
>> impossible.
>
> Only by defining Omnipotent in a differnt way to theologians.
> They define it as the ability to do any action that is not
> logically impossible. So failing to do that which is logically
> impossible is not a problem for omniscience as defined by the
> catholic church, for example.
>
> So you just kicked a strawman. 8-)
We've been discussing this in another thread. What you would have
me kick instead of my strawman is itself a casee of special
pleading. Anybody but God can prove that this sentence is true.
Here's that other thread: