|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
 Posted - 08/28/2001 : 12:53:22 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Although the term may be ambigious to you, thiests may have a different view. God(dess) to them has a much deeper connotative meaning than a concept.
It seems odd to me that you should make a claim that the term God(dess) is not ambiguous in these threads where, if nothing else is clear, it is clear that we have no hard and fast definition of that term.
Even the parenthetical alteration you make of the word increases the ambiguity rather than lessen it.
I might also recommend that if Theists believe that they should be able to declare that there is a god(dess) without anyone taking offense, then they should extent the same honor to those whose opinions differ.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it.
Slater,
The phrasing of the assertion of lack of God(dess) is what I am objecting to. Not the assertion of lack of God(dess). I have extended the "honor" or "courtesy" of allowing for a differing opinion. However, the phrasing used is insulting. The phrasing used was equavalent to, IMO, "I don't believe in a God and all of you who do worship an ambigious word in the dictionary which has no real meaning." Although characterisations of a diety(s) are nebulous and differ from believer to believer, the word has a more real meaning to theists.
Theists declare that they believe there is a God(dess). Just like you declare that you believe that there is not a God(dess).
|
 |
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2001 : 16:21:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Theists declare that they believe there is a God(dess). Just like you declare that you believe that there is not a God(dess).
Atheists are not people who BELIEVE that there is no god, or goddess or whatever.
Atheists LACK the belief in a god. At most Atheists reject the assertion that there is a god because the asserters offer no proof in support of their claims.
Belief has nothing to do with it.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2001 : 10:15:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Theists declare that they believe there is a God(dess). Just like you declare that you believe that there is not a God(dess).
Atheists are not people who BELIEVE that there is no god, or goddess or whatever.
Atheists LACK the belief in a god. At most Atheists reject the assertion that there is a god because the asserters offer no proof in support of their claims.
Belief has nothing to do with it.
This is not entirely true. You have charaterized only "negative" atheism. There are also "positive" atheists who do make the putative claim that God does not exist.
I again recommend Ted Drange's essay on the relevant terminology: Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism. I've found it most useful in clearing these matters up.
Here is a relevant excerpt:
quote:
Michael Martin draws a distinction between "negative atheists," who are without any belief in God, and "positive atheists," who deny God's existence.[Michael Martin, Atheism: A Philosophical Justification (Temple University Press, 1990), pp. 463-64.]) Applying that distinction, it could be said that I (and most people) use the term "atheist" in the sense of "positive atheist." It should be noted that all positive atheists are automatically negative atheists, which may sound somewhat peculiar when those expressions are used.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2001 : 10:26:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
quote:
Theists declare that they believe there is a God(dess). Just like you declare that you believe that there is not a God(dess).
Atheists are not people who BELIEVE that there is no god, or goddess or whatever.
Atheists LACK the belief in a god. At most Atheists reject the assertion that there is a god because the asserters offer no proof in support of their claims.
Belief has nothing to do with it.
This is not entirely true. You have charaterized only "negative" atheism. There are also "positive" atheists who do make the putative claim that God does not exist.
I again recommend Ted Drange's essay on the relevant terminology: Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism. I've found it most useful in clearing these matters up.
Here is a relevant excerpt:
quote:
Michael Martin draws a distinction between "negative atheists," who are without any belief in God, and "positive atheists," who deny God's existence.[Michael Martin, Atheism: A Philosophical Justification (Temple University Press, 1990), pp. 463-64.]) Applying that distinction, it could be said that I (and most people) use the term "atheist" in the sense of "positive atheist." It should be noted that all positive atheists are automatically negative atheists, which may sound somewhat peculiar when those expressions are used.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
On further review of my statement and Slater's views, the wording was inaccurate. I should have said "Just like you declare that you lack a belief in a God(dess)". He has always expressed himself as a negative atheist. The rest of the post stands.
|
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2001 : 10:29:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Atheists are not people who BELIEVE that there is no god, or goddess or whatever.
Atheists LACK the belief in a god. At most Atheists reject the assertion that there is a god because the asserters offer no proof in support of their claims.
Belief has nothing to do with it.
This is not entirely true. You have charaterized only "negative" atheism. There are also "positive" atheists who do make the putative claim that God does not exist.
I again recommend Ted Drange's essay on the relevant terminology: Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism. I've found it most useful in clearing these matters up.
[/quote]
{excerpt deleted}
It is a meaningless distinction you draw, unless you wish to submit that 'positive' atheism (or 'strong' atheism, as I have also heard) is equivalent to some instances of theism in that its proponents will not be convinced otherwise even in the presence of strong evidence to the contrary. If 'positive' atheists routinely say, "There are no gods and I shall not be convinced otherwise come hell or high water  ," then you might have a case. Otherwise, I don't see how momentary declarations of certitude are relevant.
This signature does not exist. |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2001 : 10:49:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It is a meaningless distinction you draw, unless you wish to submit that 'positive' atheism (or 'strong' atheism, as I have also heard) is equivalent to some instances of theism in that its proponents will not be convinced otherwise even in the presence of strong evidence to the contrary. If 'positive' atheists routinely say, "There are no gods and I shall not be convinced otherwise come hell or high water ," then you might have a case. Otherwise, I don't see how momentary declarations of certitude are relevant.
I think the positive/negative distinction very relevant to burden of proof. There is a huge difference between the follwing claims:
"I do not believe in any UFOs."
"I believe there are no UFOs."
In the former case, one need show only a lack of evidence. In the latter case, one need show evidence of lack.
Another way to see it is that negative atheists do not make the claim that God exists or that God does not exist, they are agnostic on the matter.
Edited by - tergiversant on 08/29/2001 11:14:04 |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2001 : 11:06:07 [Permalink]
|
In an attempt to bring this tangent backto the subject topic, here is an example of a simplified positive atheistic argument relavant to the idea of Hell:
1) If God exists he is just and loving
2) If God exists he sends some people to hell
3) Sending people to hell is not loving or just.
:. God does not exist.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2001 : 11:30:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
1) If God exists he is just and loving
I don't get why this is an assumption anyone can make to start things off. Couldn't there be a god that is not just and loving? It's God's universe and God's rules if there is one....a god that is.
 @tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2001 : 11:53:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
1) If God exists he is just and loving
I don't get why this is an assumption anyone can make to start things off. Couldn't there be a god that is not just and loving? It's God's universe and God's rules if there is one....a god that is.
I should have made it explicit that I'm not talking about "a god" in this argument but rather the traditional Judeo-Christian God depicted in the Bible. Both premises rely upon this theology for the definition of God.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2001 : 12:04:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
In an attempt to bring this tangent backto the subject topic, here is an example of a simplified positive atheistic argument relavant to the idea of Hell:
1) If God exists he is just and loving
2) If God exists he sends some people to hell
3) Sending people to hell is not loving or just.
:. God does not exist.
Okay. I suppose one could use only this and similar arguments as a case for non-existence but I doubt 2 things:
1)That a type of atheist would use only this type of argument in favor of non-existence.
2)That some professed 'negative' atheists would disagree with or reject this type of argument.
This signature does not exist. |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2001 : 12:07:35 [Permalink]
|
Don't forget that Christians have an automatic out set up for the "just and loving god" bit. If a child dies it seems unfair to us but Christians accept that God knows what it's doing. It has a justice above ours. How are we to know that the child wasn't the next Hitler etc....
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2001 : 12:15:37 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Okay. I suppose one could use only this and similar arguments as a case for non-existence but I doubt 2 things:
1)That a type of atheist would use only this type of argument in favor of non-existence.
2)That some professed 'negative' atheists would disagree with or reject this type of argument.
Good points both.
Re: (1) I'm all for other kinds of arguments.
Re: (2) Perhaps their profession of negativity would not extent to this particular concept of god. As I said above, claims of agnosticism and atheism must be relative to some particular definition of god, the link I posted from Drange makes this case in detail.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2001 : 12:26:05 [Permalink]
|
One thing that I forgot to add about the child's death I brought up in my last post...why wouldn't god just elect not to have that sperm fertilize an egg or something less painful for all.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2001 : 12:30:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Don't forget that Christians have an automatic out set up for the "just and loving god" bit. If a child dies it seems unfair to us but Christians accept that God knows what it's doing. It has a justice above ours. How are we to know that the child wasn't the next Hitler etc....
The so-called unknown purposes defense (UPD) might work against the Humean deductive argument from evil, but it does not work against the argument from Hell. There is manifestly no justice nor love to be found in eternal torment.
As the separate matter of God having a whole other standard of love of justice, if this is so, then Christians have been deliberately decieving us by calling God "just" and "loving" in ordinary English.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
Jim
New Member
30 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2001 : 13:48:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Out of all the excuses and apologies for the seeming injustice of the God of the Bible, I've not ever heard a true believer answer this one simple fact.
Why were Adam and Eve (and all of humanity from this point on) punished when they didn't even know what "wrong" meant at the time they committed the forbidden act?
Kids are a good example. Don't they often do things that are wrong? Do they always know what they are doing is wrong? Sometimes, sometimes not. It is not until they are told that walking across the street is wrong that they realize it is wrong.
Adam and Eve were not punished for doing something they knew was wrong. They made a decision to disobey God. There choice had consequences. Why did God do all of this? I really don't know for sure.
Jim
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
