|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
 Posted - 08/29/2001 : 15:14:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
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.
This is a good example only if you believe it is just and right to kick a baby out of the house the first time it poops in it's diaper.
A just and "moral" parent would never punish a child for doing something it wasn't told it was not to do in the first place. The difference between this and the story of The Fall, is that the knowledge of it being wrong to disobey must be imparted to the child first.
The consequence that God gave for eating the fruit was that "ye shall surely die". Apparently, Eve didn't trust God fully (hey, she didn't know this was wrong yet!), so she ate it anyway.
Well, they didn't die after all. Hmm... The serpent was telling the truth, while God apparently lied.
(Oh, you think it wasn't literal death God was talking about, but the figurative death of being kicked out of the Garden of Eden, and separated from God. I think that's way too much of a stretch in the context of the story. Everything else is plain talk, and Adam and Eve hadn't eaten of either tree, so was God tyring to trick them or something? They were too naive to catch that fancy literary crap!)
------------
Hope springs eternal but there's no conviction
Actions mistaken for lip service paid
All this concern is the true contradiction
The world is insane...
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 08/29/2001 15:15:42 |
 |
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2001 : 20:44:20 [Permalink]
|
quote:
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.
Grazie.
quote:
Re: (1) I'm all for other kinds of arguments.
Just covering all my bases.
quote:
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.
Would this include the general statement, "I do not believe what the theist believes"? This also seems to support the statement, "All theists are atheists but for the god in which they believe."
I'm curious. In practice, do you think a 'positive' atheist has any more conviction than a 'negative' atheist? Would you try to make an argument that 'positive' atheists are some kind of unbelieving fundamentalists, that they would likely not change their beliefs even in the presence of strong evidence to the contrary. IMO these distinctions are orders of magnitude more meaningful than which type would make inductive arguments.
This signature does not exist. |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2001 : 23:14:07 [Permalink]
|
For the sake of argument, I will present these ideas: quote:
A just and "moral" parent would never punish a child for doing something it wasn't told it was not to do in the first place. The difference between this and the story of The Fall, is that the knowledge of it being wrong to disobey must be imparted to the child first.
But, god did tell Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit; thus, he is justified in kicking their disobedient asses out, eh?  quote:
The consequence that God gave for eating the fruit was that "ye shall surely die". Apparently, Eve didn't trust God fully (hey, she didn't know this was wrong yet!), so she ate it anyway.
Well, they didn't die after all. Hmm... The serpent was telling the truth, while God apparently lied.
(Oh, you think it wasn't literal death God was talking about, but the figurative death of being kicked out of the Garden of Eden, and separated from God. I think that's way too much of a stretch in the context of the story. Everything else is plain talk, and Adam and Eve hadn't eaten of either tree, so was God tyring to trick them or something? They were too naive to catch that fancy literary crap!)
Eve and Adam did die, though, just not immediately. GEN 3:17 "...for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." This does seem to imply that Adam (that is god's addressee) will die the very day he eats from the tree; however, these are the same days that god created the earth in, eh? Each day could be a literal day, 930 years, or a millennium.
I am afraid I'm not clever enough to come up with a good signature, eh? |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2001 : 07:44:18 [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.
 @tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law!
Actually, the case could be made from Bible passages that God is not just. For instance, in the old testament the punishment for disobedient children, rapist, and rape victims are all death by stoning. Rape victims? This is just?
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2001 : 08:34:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
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.
Some of the terms you folks are using are terms that are in use in the Atheist movement but not as you are using them. It might cause some confusion when you speak to Atheists.
Positive Atheism means the same as Weak Atheism.(They came up with the name Positive because the name Weak sounded so, well, weak.) It is even the name of a little magazine, that comes out of Oregon, that shows the truely excellent taste of occassionally printing some of my stories.Positive Atheism stresses the lack of any proof. It is the rejection of a claim.
Hard Atheism (there is nothing called Negative Atheism unless you ask a Christian) out and out states that there is no god. It too is based on lack of proof but feels that since the oldest known evidence for the worship of what is recognizably a god is 12,000 years old (on Tuesday of next week) and that no proof has been forth coming in all that time, that that in itself IS proof enough that there are no gods.(This gets back to proving a negative, which, I still hold, you cannot [and need not] do) Hard Atheism is the making of a claim.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
Orpheus
Skeptic Friend
92 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2001 : 09:02:59 [Permalink]
|
What would the position of claiming that the question of whether god exists is nonsensical be called?
If there can be no rational way of answering the question, by virtue of the premises it is built upon, one can argue that the entire question is in fact not a valid question, if by question you mean a statement which could have a reasonable answer.
To clarrify: what would the possible answers to the question: does god exist? be, which would not lay claim to some semantic definition. If theists claim that god=thunder, for instance, they are simply redefining the word thunder, and not making additional claims.
BUT, if they claim more than that, as many theists do (eg. god is omnipotent etc.), then you run into trouble. Because god is definied in undefined attributes, such as infinite, or supernatural, it follows that PER DEFINITION, the concept "god" is one which denies any connection with reality or rational inquiry. Therefore, posing a question as to his existence, is a non-starter, and logically contradictory. It is exactly the same as asking what a square circle looks like, or what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object.
sorry if the reasoning of this posting is somewhat convoluted- sleep deprivation does that to you...
Find your own damned answers!
Edited by - orpheus on 08/30/2001 09:04:57 |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2001 : 09:29:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
For the sake of argument, I will present these ideas: quote:
A just and "moral" parent would never punish a child for doing something it wasn't told it was not to do in the first place. The difference between this and the story of The Fall, is that the knowledge of it being wrong to disobey must be imparted to the child first.
But, god did tell Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit; thus, he is justified in kicking their disobedient asses out, eh?
You quoted my second sentence above, which already addresses your statement:
quote:
The difference between this and the story of The Fall, is that the knowledge of it being wrong to disobey must be imparted to the child first.
Adam and Eve, for their punishment of banishment to be just, must be given the "Knowledge of Good and Evil" before they can be blamed for doing anything wrong.
------------
Hope springs eternal but there's no conviction
Actions mistaken for lip service paid
All this concern is the true contradiction
The world is insane... |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2001 : 09:31:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Each day could be a literal day, 930 years, or a millennium.
There is absolutely no justification for thinking that the "days" talked about in Genesis are anything other than a 24 hour period. The bible says "7 days", why would anyone think this didn't mean "7 days"?
------------
Hope springs eternal but there's no conviction
Actions mistaken for lip service paid
All this concern is the true contradiction
The world is insane...
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 08/30/2001 09:33:13 |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2001 : 09:43:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
What would the position of claiming that the question of whether god exists is nonsensical be called?
If there can be no rational way of answering the question, by virtue of the premises it is built upon, one can argue that the entire question is in fact not a valid question, if by question you mean a statement which could have a reasonable answer.
To clarrify: what would the possible answers to the question: does god exist? be, which would not lay claim to some semantic definition. If theists claim that god=thunder, for instance, they are simply redefining the word thunder, and not making additional claims.
BUT, if they claim more than that, as many theists do (eg. god is omnipotent etc.), then you run into trouble. Because god is definied in undefined attributes, such as infinite, or supernatural, it follows that PER DEFINITION, the concept "god" is one which denies any connection with reality or rational inquiry. Therefore, posing a question as to his existence, is a non-starter, and logically contradictory. It is exactly the same as asking what a square circle looks like, or what happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object.
sorry if the reasoning of this posting is somewhat convoluted- sleep deprivation does that to you...
On the contrary, I find this to be entirely logical. The most common theistic definitions of God are ones like, "God is the creator of the universe," which, obviously, is the same as "God created the universe" which is a statement about what God did rather than what God is. "God created the universe" assumes 'God' has been predefined, which it has not. We are left trying to define God in terms of God, which is impossible. Of course, there are also statements like, "God is a spirit or a soul" which suppose that 'spirit' and/or 'soul' have also been predefined, neither of which I can think of a coherent definition for. Theists claim that 'God' is a coherent concept and that there is some degree of theistic agreement on what God is. Either theists are intentionally using what God did in place of what God is and hoping we won't notice or they are self-deluded.
This signature does not exist. |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2001 : 09:53:13 [Permalink]
|
PhDreamer,
quote:
Would this include the general statement, "I do not believe what the theist believes"? This also seems to support the statement, "All theists are atheists but for the god in which they believe."
Indeed. Considering the vast number of gods (concepts) available out there for the choosing, that makes most everyone at least 99.44% atheist. Except perhpas for the UUs, New Agers, and Zen types who can seemingly embrace the contradiction that all paths are somehow simulataneously correct.
quote:
I'm curious. In practice, do you think a 'positive' atheist has any more conviction than a 'negative' atheist? Would you try to make an argument that 'positive' atheists are some kind of unbelieving fundamentalists, that they would likely not change their beliefs even in the presence of strong evidence to the contrary. IMO these distinctions are orders of magnitude more meaningful than which type would make inductive arguments.
I think the distinction I made based upon content of belief (propositional assent) is the best in terms of descriptive accuracy, however, I'll allow that your distinction based on conviction of belief is of interest. Certainly the epistemological, methodological, and psychological matters at hand are closely interrelated, however, I am usually quite hesitant to attempt plumb the depths of other folks' motivations for (un)belief, for fear of committing the genetic fallacy -- I try to stick solely to the arguments themselves.
That said, and now that I've caveated myself like a McDonald's coffee cup, I'll violate my own rules for a bit. I would think that positive atheists do in fact more strongly hold their unbelief than negative atheists or agnostics. This is based upon two things (1) anecdotal evidence from personal experience and (2) the strength of the claims themselves. Since the positive atheist is making the stronger atheistic claims, it seems quite normal to expect that she would hold the stronger convictions on the matter. The agnostic could turn theist upon coming across any convincing evidence of some god(s), whereas the positive atheist would need refutations of their arguments against god in addition to the said evidence.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2001 : 10:14:44 [Permalink]
|
Slater,
Unfortunately, we continue to disagree on the proper use of terminology. I've explained the difference in my own words and I've posted and reposted a link to a well-written and lucid essay, Atheism, Agnosticism, Noncognitivism which explains the usage of "positive" (aka "hard" or "strong") atheism and "negative" (aka "weak" or "soft" atheism) by some of the most prominent atheist writers alive today, citing several primary sources. If that does not satisfy your criterion for proper linguistic usage, alas and alack there is little more that I can do. Except to say that, FYI, when I say positive atheism I refer to those who make the positive claim "There is no god." Negative atheists are those who merely do not assent to the claim, "There is a god."
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2001 : 10:17:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
What would the position of claiming that the question of whether god exists is nonsensical be called?
Noncognitivism. I implore you all to read or at least skim the link I've posted above. It addresses all these issues in some detail.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
Edited by - tergiversant on 08/30/2001 10:19:59 |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2001 : 10:21:48 [Permalink]
|
ValiantDancer,
quote:
Actually, the case could be made from Bible passages that God is not just. For instance, in the old testament the
punishment for disobedient children, rapist, and rape victims are all death by stoning. Rape victims? This is just?
The Bible clearly describes God as loving and just, and just as clearly describes divine actions that are unloving and unjust, such as those you've mentioned above, or those I've mentioned above (damning people to eternal suffering). Either way we can formulate arguments against the existence of God from the formal contradictions thus entailed. It seems we are in vehement agreement on this matter.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2001 : 10:37:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Each day could be a literal day, 930 years, or a millennium.
There is absolutely no justification for thinking that the "days" talked about in Genesis are anything other than a 24 hour period. The bible says "7 days", why would anyone think this didn't mean "7 days"?
Taking Genesis strictly literally is just plain silly. I've started a separate thread on this matter.
That said, even if we did take the Fall of Man to be the allegory that it was meant to be, I think we could still make a case that God is acting unjust in punishing humanity as He has in this life. Although it is even easier to make the case for divine injustice when we look to that which comes hereafter.
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2001 : 11:13:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
I'm curious. In practice, do you think a 'positive' atheist has any more conviction than a 'negative' atheist? Would you try to make an argument that 'positive' atheists are some kind of unbelieving fundamentalists, that they would likely not change their beliefs even in the presence of strong evidence to the contrary. IMO these distinctions are orders of magnitude more meaningful than which type would make inductive arguments.
I think the distinction I made based upon content of belief (propositional assent) is the best in terms of descriptive accuracy, however, I'll allow that your distinction based on conviction of belief is of interest. Certainly the epistemological, methodological, and psychological matters at hand are closely interrelated, however, I am usually quite hesitant to attempt plumb the depths of other folks' motivations for (un)belief, for fear of committing the genetic fallacy -- I try to stick solely to the arguments themselves.
Understood. Forgive my personal curiosity, my background is in Psychology.
quote:
That said, and now that I've caveated myself like a McDonald's coffee cup, I'll violate my own rules for a bit. I would think that positive atheists do in fact more strongly hold their unbelief than negative atheists or agnostics. This is based upon two things (1) anecdotal evidence from personal experience and (2) the strength of the claims themselves. Since the positive atheist is making the stronger atheistic claims, it seems quite normal to expect that she would hold the stronger convictions on the matter. The agnostic could turn theist upon coming across any convincing evidence of some god(s), whereas the positive atheist would need refutations of their arguments against god in addition to the said evidence.
Noted. It seems this is a quality/quantity distinction. (Note: I am going to use the terms as we have been using them, with all due respect to Slater's corrections, in the interest of continuity) The scenario you describe would arguably convince both the 'negative' and 'positive' atheists of the existence of something that would fit a definition of "god." The positive atheist might remain firm in his conviction that the apparent god is not the Christian God (good and just), but would not likely withhold acknowledgment that it (the alleged god) is the creator of the universe if given sufficient evidence. Basically, this is a difference of quality, and one that doesn't seem meaningful.
This signature does not exist. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
