A Gutsy Preacher

[Josiah]

double post, sorry

 

[Josiah]

I have no belief regarding god/gods. I reject any claim made regarding the supernatural on lack of evidence, because I am skeptical of any claim made without evidence, and it does not involve faith. This is not a belief, if is a rejection of a belief, a lack of belief, an absence of belief...and this is very different than believing the negation of a belief.

Then you are not an Atheist or a Theist. You aren't even an Agnostic. Maybe a discussion of philosophical nihilism might be helpful, perhaps you relate more to something like those (perhaps applied to only one issue)?

But here's where we disagree: You CLAIM you reject anything without evidence..... yet you provide no evidence of your choices of reality, I think MAYBE you miss the point of this thread: nothing is absolutely, objectively provable (true in that sense), nothing is void of "faith" (a working reliance that something is real).

If you seek absolute, objective PROOF - you will always fall short. You might begin by PROVING in this absolute, objective sense that you even are. Trying doing that without any faith - without any assumptions, without any reliance upon anything as being reliable, real. Friend, we are all people of faith.... we all walk by faith..... we are all believers. Not all of the SAME faith, beliefs - of course.



:smile:



- Josiah

 

[MarkFL]

Then you are not an Atheist or a Theist. You aren't even an Agnostic. Maybe a discussion of nihilism or solipism might be helpful, perhaps you relate more to something like those (perhaps applied to only one issue)?

But here's where we disagree: You CLAIM you reject anything without evidence..... yet you provide no evidence of your choices of reality, I think MAYBE you miss the point of this thread: nothing is absolutely, objectively provable (true in that sense), nothing is void of "faith" (a working reliance that something is real).

If you seek absolute, objective PROOF - you will always fall short. You might begin by PROVING in this absolute, objective sense that you even are. Trying doing that without any faith - without any assumptions, without any reliance upon anything as being reliable, real. Friend, we are all people of faith.... we all walk by faith..... we are all believers.



:smile:



- Josiah

Then you are not an Atheist or a Theist. You aren't even an Agnostic. Maybe a discussion of nihilism might be helpful, perhaps you relate more to something like those (perhaps applied to only one issue)?

But here's where we disagree: You CLAIM you reject anything without evidence..... yet you provide no evidence of your choices of reality, I think MAYBE you miss the point of this thread: nothing is absolutely, objectively provable (true in that sense), nothing is void of "faith" (a working reliance that something is real).

If you seek absolute, objective PROOF - you will always fall short. You might begin by PROVING in this absolute, objective sense that you even are. Trying doing that without any faith - without any assumptions, without any reliance upon anything as being reliable, real. Friend, we are all people of faith.... we all walk by faith..... we are all believers.



:smile:



- Josiah

Then you are not an Atheist or a Theist. You aren't even an Agnostic. Maybe a discussion of philosophical nihilism might be helpful, perhaps you relate more to something like those (perhaps applied to only one issue)?

But here's where we disagree: You CLAIM you reject anything without evidence..... yet you provide no evidence of your choices of reality, I think MAYBE you miss the point of this thread: nothing is absolutely, objectively provable (true in that sense), nothing is void of "faith" (a working reliance that something is real).

If you seek absolute, objective PROOF - you will always fall short. You might begin by PROVING in this absolute, objective sense that you even are. Trying doing that without any faith - without any assumptions, without any reliance upon anything as being reliable, real. Friend, we are all people of faith.... we all walk by faith..... we are all believers. Not all of the SAME faith, beliefs - of course.



:smile:



- Josiah

Nope, still an agnostic atheist.

 

[MarkFL]

The point of the blog post to which I originally linked is that regarding the claims of theism, we are all truly agnostic. If we actually had evidence, then faith would not be required.

This has nothing to do with proof, but with evidence. Now some may counter that it takes faith to believe in reality, but I see this as nonsensical subterfuge.

 

[Josiah]

Nope, still an agnostic atheist.

So you don't know if you are an Atheist or not, lol. Okay



.

 

[MarkFL]

I know I am agnostic, and I know I am an atheist, in so far as my belief that reality exists and that I'm not a block of code in a computer simulation will allow.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I know I am agnostic, and I know I am an atheist, in so far as my belief that reality exists and that I'm not a block of code in a computer simulation will allow.

You are a patient and quite magnanimous man

 

[Josiah]

The point of the blog post to which I originally linked is that regarding the claims of theism, we are all truly agnostic. If we actually had evidence, then faith would not be required.

This has nothing to do with proof, but with evidence. Now some may counter that it takes faith to believe in reality, but I see this as nonsensical subterfuge.

1. Well, the Atheist does NOT insist that theism is an equal possibility, the Atheist does NOT say that "GOD IS" (theism) but the antithetical opposite "GOD IS NOT". Atheism and Theism are equally dogmatic, just holding to antithetical, opposite positions. The Agnostic holds to NEITHER position, reject NEITHER position. Instead of affirming one and rejecting the other position, the Agnostic holds that there is insufficient evidence to hold to or rely on EITHER position, to be a Theist OR an Agnostic. These are 3 very difficult views, these are generally mutually exclusive positions.


2. In a ABSOLUTE, PHILOSPHICAL sense - the opening poster (if I understand him) has a point, one of course the Atheist denounces. Yes, it is impossible to not have faith..... it is impossible to not believe..... Kierkegaard was right: we ALL live by faith, we ALL must make the "leap of faith," we are ALL equally people of faith. There is no such thing as the absolute nihilist (well, perhaps after he commits suicide). In this extreme, absolute, objective, philosophical sense: nothing can be proven. But that just underlines the point: we thus are people of faith Faith is relying on things we cannot/do not PROVE is true/real. You can choose to breathe (because you hold that's good to do), you can choose to not breathe (because you hold that's not good to do) but you are likely to take one of those two positions, consciencely or not.


3. Your distinction between "proof" and "evidence" simply reveals that you too walk by faith. You make your assumptions, you make your choices... you have your beliefs..... you make your "leap of faiths"..... and now you admit, you do so WITHOUT the proof atheist constantly demand from theists, "proof" based on THEIR faith that excludes the possibility of any other. Your faith tells you what "evidence" is real and what isn't, you CHOOSE to rely on a certain level of this "evidence" you CHOOSE to embrace as reliable.


4. "Faith" is what we trust, rely, accept, choose, assume as real/true. It is not wholly dependent on proof. When I was 5, I had surgery. Life-threatening surgery. Could I prove the surgery would go well? Did this five year old have evidence that it would (at BEST, I had statistics - fairly meaningless in any single example; statistically I could just as easily be the 5% as the 95%). I was a passenger on an airplane a couple of weeks ago. Yes, evidence shows that's generally a safe mode of transportation but those things do have bad endings at times. Did I check out all things in the plane? Did I even met the pilot? Did I know the weather? Yet I boarded the plane - I relied, trusted in a position to which I had no proof, nothing absolute or objective.... even the "evidence" was only general and nonspecific and statistical. IMO, your point that it is "nonsensical" to trust/rely/choose something without proof is in fact a contradiction of your own position. We are all people of faith..... we all walk by faith..... we are all believers. Unless you're dead, lol. Now, if you want to condemn the Theist for trusting/relying upon the divine because he has no absolute, objective PROOF in the purely philisophical sense - then you must equally condemn the antithesis of that, the Atheist. It is nonsensical to do otherwise.



- Josiah




.

 

[MarkFL]

...the Atheist does NOT say that "GOD IS" (theism) but the antithetical opposite "GOD IS NOT".

Yet again, wrong. You are certainly entrenched in your misconception. The atheist says, I do not accept "God is." This is NOT the same as claiming "God is not." If you tell me the number of grains of sand in the Sahara desert is an even number, I will reject your claim, but this does not mean I claim the number is odd. It simply means unless you can show me the evidence that the number is even, I must reject your claim, and I can do so without making a claim myself.

 

[Stravinsk]

Yet again, wrong. You are certainly entrenched in your misconception. The atheist says, I do not accept "God is." This is NOT the same as claiming "God is not." If you tell me the number of grains of sand in the Sahara desert is an even number, I will reject your claim, but this does not mean I claim the number is odd. It simply means unless you can show me the evidence that the number is even, I must reject your claim, and I can do so without making a claim myself.

MarkFL - I believe your analogy best fits with an agnostic position:

Positive assertion there are an EVEN number of grains in the sand= No
Positive assertion there are an ODD number of grains in the sand = No

Positive assertion that it is not possible to know whether the number of grains in the sand is positive or negative (without evidence you would accept) = Yes

 

[Josiah]

Yet again, wrong. You are certainly entrenched in your misconception. The atheist says, I do not accept "God is." This is NOT the same as claiming "God is not."

"God is not" is identical to "God is not." A-Theism (NO God) is A-Theism (NO God). They are identical positions. "A" (no, not) + "Theos" (God) = No God or God is NOT. You may choose some other declaration, but not without abandoning and denouncing Atheism.


You may instead embrace Agnosticism. "A" (no, not) + "Gnosis" (certainty). This NEITHER affirms or denies anything. This accepts the possibility of all positions without affirming any position. Perhaps you are an Agnostic but if so, you cannot be an atheist, the are mutually exclusive.


"There is life currently on Mars" is a dogmatic affirmation. Position one.
"There is no life on Mars" is equally a dogmatic affirmation (just the antithesis of #1). Position two.
"I'm not currently embracing that there is or is not life on Mars - my position on that is undetermined". Position three. It doesn't deny OR affirm # 1 or 2.

If you tell me the number of grains of sand in the Sahara desert is an even number, I will reject your claim, but this does not mean I claim the number is odd.

It does if you dogmatically insist the number is even, as in "Is not odd." If you dogmatically insist on the position "aimpar" (Not odd) then it likely does mean you hold the number is even (as you present these as the only two options).

And of course, it would be hypocritical to insist, "You must objectively PROVE to the philosophical absolute by using only even numbers that the number of grains of sand is odd but I need not prove my position that the number of grains is even" to use your illustration.



Thank you.



- Josiah




.

 

[MarkFL]

Well, I know you will not budge (and I suspected you would concoct some way to refuse to see my clear analogy using the parity of the number of grains of sand in the Sahara), but I am hoping others will read my posts and come to a better understanding of what atheism actually is. It is only for their benefit that I bothered, and if only one does come to a better understanding, then my effort was not wasted.

 

[MarkFL]

My parting words in this thread are those of others on atheism:

Dan Barker: A former fundamentalist preacher who has become an activist for atheism, freethought, and the separation of church and state. He wrote in his 1992 book "Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist" that:

• It turns out that the word atheism means much less than I had thought. It is merely the lack of theism [...] Basic atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief. There is a difference between believing there is no god and not believing there is a god — both are atheistic, though popular usage has ignored the latter [...].

Valerii A. Kuvakin: Professor and chair of the Department of Russian Philosophy at Moscow State University, Kuvakin writes in his book In Search of our Humanity:

• Atheism ... goes back to the Ancient Greek (a -- a negative prefix, theos -- god), evidencing the antiquity of the outlook of those who saw no presence of God (or gods) in their everyday lives, or who even denied the very existence of God (or gods). There are different types of atheism, but atheism in one form or another has existed in every civilization.
• The concept "atheist" partially coincides with such notions as "skeptic," "agnostic," and "rationalist" and it borders with such notions as "anticlerical," "God fighter" (theomachist), and "God abuser" (blasphemer).
• It is wrong to identify an atheist as one who denies God, though this is what opponents of atheism usually claim. If such people exist, it would probably be more correct to call them the "verbal" murderers of God, for the prefix a- means denying as elimination. ... I would like to stress that the prefix a- does not necessarily mean rejection. It can mean "absence of." For example, "apathy" means "absence of passion." Thus, the concept "atheist" does not necessarily mean nihilism.

Michael Martin, Atheism: A Philosophical Justification, p. 463. Temple University Press, 1990:

• If you look up "atheism" in the dictionary, you will probably find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly many people understand atheism in this way. Yet many atheists do not, and this is not what the term means if one considers it from the point of view of its Greek roots. In Greek "a" means "without" or "not" and "theos" means "god." From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of belief in God.

Gordon Stein (Ed.), An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism, p. 3. Prometheus, 1980:

• The average theologian (there are exceptions, of course) uses "atheist" to mean a person who denies the existence of a God. Even an atheist would agree that some atheists (a small minority) would fit this definition. However, most atheists would stongly dispute the adequacy of this definition. Rather, they would hold that an atheist is a person without a belief in God. The distiniction is small but important. Denying something means that you have knowledge of what it is that you are being asked to affirm, but that you have rejected that particular concept. To be without a belief in God merely means that yhe term "god" has no importance, or possibly no meaning, to you. Belief in God is not a factor in your life. Surely this is quite different from denying the existence of God. Atheism is not a belief as such. It is the lack of belief.
• When we examine the components of the word "atheism," we can see this distinction more clearly. The word is made up of "a-" and "-theism." Theism, we will all agree, is a belief in a God or gods. The prefix "a-" can mean "not" (or "no") or "without." If it means "not," then we have as an atheist someone who is not a theist (i.e., someone who does not have a belief in a God or gods). If it means "without," then an atheist is someone without theism, or without a belief in God.

 

[Stravinsk]

My parting words in this thread are those of others on atheism:

Dan Barker: A former fundamentalist preacher who has become an activist for atheism, freethought, and the separation of church and state. He wrote in his 1992 book "Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist" that:

• It turns out that the word atheism means much less than I had thought. It is merely the lack of theism [...] Basic atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief. There is a difference between believing there is no god and not believing there is a god — both are atheistic, though popular usage has ignored the latter [...].

Valerii A. Kuvakin: Professor and chair of the Department of Russian Philosophy at Moscow State University, Kuvakin writes in his book In Search of our Humanity:

• Atheism ... goes back to the Ancient Greek (a -- a negative prefix, theos -- god), evidencing the antiquity of the outlook of those who saw no presence of God (or gods) in their everyday lives, or who even denied the very existence of God (or gods). There are different types of atheism, but atheism in one form or another has existed in every civilization.
• The concept "atheist" partially coincides with such notions as "skeptic," "agnostic," and "rationalist" and it borders with such notions as "anticlerical," "God fighter" (theomachist), and "God abuser" (blasphemer).
• It is wrong to identify an atheist as one who denies God, though this is what opponents of atheism usually claim. If such people exist, it would probably be more correct to call them the "verbal" murderers of God, for the prefix a- means denying as elimination. ... I would like to stress that the prefix a- does not necessarily mean rejection. It can mean "absence of." For example, "apathy" means "absence of passion." Thus, the concept "atheist" does not necessarily mean nihilism.

Michael Martin, Atheism: A Philosophical Justification, p. 463. Temple University Press, 1990:

• If you look up "atheism" in the dictionary, you will probably find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly many people understand atheism in this way. Yet many atheists do not, and this is not what the term means if one considers it from the point of view of its Greek roots. In Greek "a" means "without" or "not" and "theos" means "god." From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of belief in God.

Gordon Stein (Ed.), An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism, p. 3. Prometheus, 1980:

• The average theologian (there are exceptions, of course) uses "atheist" to mean a person who denies the existence of a God. Even an atheist would agree that some atheists (a small minority) would fit this definition. However, most atheists would stongly dispute the adequacy of this definition. Rather, they would hold that an atheist is a person without a belief in God. The distiniction is small but important. Denying something means that you have knowledge of what it is that you are being asked to affirm, but that you have rejected that particular concept. To be without a belief in God merely means that yhe term "god" has no importance, or possibly no meaning, to you. Belief in God is not a factor in your life. Surely this is quite different from denying the existence of God. Atheism is not a belief as such. It is the lack of belief.
• When we examine the components of the word "atheism," we can see this distinction more clearly. The word is made up of "a-" and "-theism." Theism, we will all agree, is a belief in a God or gods. The prefix "a-" can mean "not" (or "no") or "without." If it means "not," then we have as an atheist someone who is not a theist (i.e., someone who does not have a belief in a God or gods). If it means "without," then an atheist is someone without theism, or without a belief in God.

Well Mark, in an attempt to understand the difference you are trying to show, I read through these quotes and applied them to two things I definitely don't believe in - the tooth fairy and Santa Claus (at the least the version in popular media of a fat man who travels the world climbing down chimneys to fill stockings and so forth)

In my mind there really is no distinction between saying "the tooth fairy doesn't exist" and "I have no reason, no evidence, no indication whatsoever to believe in the tooth fairy" - there is no distinction whatsoever because they both describe the same thing to me from a practical and pragmatic perspective. I don't put any teeth under a pillow in hopes of some spare change, I don't talk to any fairies (rofl) or otherwise have any interaction with them in any physical sense, and there is no tooth fairy literature to read.

In fact, the ONLY time I might employ the first statement as opposed to the second statement is if there were a large body of tooth fairy believers that wanted me to take part in group tooth fairy believer activities. Like prayers to the tooth fairy in schools. Or giving thanks to the tooth fairy before a meal. Or maybe a ritual of putting any future fallen out teeth under my pillow - or perhaps when I age enough - dentures (lolz). In fact, that is when I would put forth the positive declaration of a negative "the tooth fairy does not exist (and the secondary definition) *because* there is no reasonable evidence of the tooth fairy's existence".

Otherwise the distinction is practically meaningless.

 

[Rens]

 

[MoreCoffee]

Some things are more real when you're young

 

[Josiah]

"God is not" is identical to "God is not."
A-Theism (NO God) is A-Theism (NO God). They are identical positions.
"A" (no, not) + "Theos" (God) = No God or God is NOT.
You may choose some other declaration, but not without abandoning and denouncing Atheism.


You may instead embrace Agnosticism. "A" (no, not) + "Gnosis" (certainty). This NEITHER affirms or denies anything. This accepts the possibility of all positions without affirming any position. Perhaps you are an Agnostic but if so, you cannot be an atheist, the are mutually exclusive.


"There is life currently on Mars" is a dogmatic affirmation. Position one.
"There is no life on Mars" is equally a dogmatic affirmation (just the antithesis of #1). Position two.
"I'm not currently embracing that there is or is not life on Mars - my position on that is undetermined". Position three. It doesn't deny OR affirm # 1 or 2.
Each mutually exclusive.




It does if you dogmatically insist the number is even, as in "Is not odd." If you dogmatically insist on the position "aimpar" (Not odd) then it likely does mean you hold the number is even (as you present these as the only two options).


And of course, it would be hypocritical to insist, "You must objectively PROVE to the philosophical absolute by using only even numbers that the number of grains of sand is odd but I need not prove my position that the number of grains is even" to use your illustration.




.

Basic atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief. There is a difference between believing there is no god and not believing there is a god — both are atheistic, though popular usage has ignored the latter.

The dogmatic position is not "Acredoism" (denial of faith) it's "Atheism" (denial of God).

Atheism ... goes back to the Ancient Greek (a -- a negative prefix, theos -- god), evidencing the antiquity of the outlook of those who denied the very existence of God (or gods).

Correct.

Atheism is a dogmatic proclamation: GOD IS NOT. It is the antithesis of Theism, which is a dogmatic proclamation: GOD IS.

I would like to stress that the prefix a- does not necessarily mean rejection. It can mean "absence of."

Correct again.

Atheism is a dogmatic proclamation: The absence of the divine. GOD IS NOT. It is the antithesis of theism: GOD IS. Equally dogmatic, just the antithesis.

If you look up "atheism" in the dictionary, you will probably find it defined as the belief that there is no God.

Correct again. Only it's not a lack of belief (again, it's not Acredoism), it's a dogmatic proclamation that there is no God.





- Josiah



.

 

[MarkFL]

It is an uphill battle to convince a Christian that atheism means little more than that the atheist does not believe in gods, goddesses, God or any supernatural supreme being(s).

I know I said I was parting this thread, but I just wanted to add that I spent a great deal of time last night at another Christian forum with which many of you here are familiar, reviewing posts where some of the Christians share Josiah's misconception regarding the definition of atheism, and without fail, the large number of atheists there voiced the same objection and made the same effort to lead and educate as I have done here. Fortunately, those in the wrong there were more receptive to being educated. It gave me hope that Josiah's stubbornness on this matter isn't widespread, even if his misconception is.

 

[MoreCoffee]

MarkFL, listening is not easy for some.

 

[MarkFL]

MarkFL, listening is not easy for some.

For decades I distanced myself from the label of atheism because I too mistakenly thought it was a belief, that it implied knowledge of the unknowable in the same way theism does. However, once I learned that in modern parlance it simply means a lack of belief, even without claiming knowledge, I embraced it, negative connotations, great societal mistrust, prejudices and all.