A Gutsy Preacher

[MoreCoffee]

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.

Yeah, it almost sounds like blessed are the honest for theirs is the comforting feeling that they did right

 

[Josiah]

It gave me hope that Josiah's stubbornness on this matter isn't widespread, even if his misconception is.

Respectfully, friend, it puzzles me that you'd want to go to such enormous lengths to TRY to evade the obvious, the undeniable. Even the quotes you provided state the obvious but then try to run from it... I can't for the life of me think why.

IF you want to insist that you deny God, insist God is NOT - then you are an Atheist. IF you simply want to say you have no conclusions, no proclamations, no view (the proverbial verdict is "out") so that you neither deny or embrace either view, that's called Agnosticism. But these are mutually exclusive ideas: To use your earlier example, one logically cannot insist: "I don't know if the number of sands on the beaches is odd or even" and then equally state, "The number of grains of sand is not odd." That's nonsensical, illogical, contradictive.


I wonder if some do this to play "both sides" - they WANT to be on record as denying God but don't want to be accountable for it, don't want others to insist the Atheist do what the Atheist insists of the Theist, "prove it"? They want to "dodge" the accountability/proof issue they demand on those with the opposite view, the Theists? I don't know. I raised this possibility, I noted that when I picked up on your sand illustration by noting the hypocrisy of the Atheist insisting , "I deny the number of gains of sand is odd, so 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.." Maybe the "I dogmatically insist God is NOT.... but I don't hold any position on that" is to try to accomplish that? I don't know. It's odd.... it's a puzzle... it's nonsensical.....

For decades I distanced myself from the label of atheism because I too mistakenly thought it was a belie

Again, Mark, it seems you are confusing Atheism with Acredoism. Atheism does NOT say, "I choose to not believe in God - who equally may or may not exist." It's is a dogmatic proclamation: "God is NOT" As you correctly noted, "A" (not, denial) "Theism" (God, divine) = God is NOT.


Atheism IS a "religion" in the sense that it makes a declaration concerning the divine (EXACTLY to the same extent that Theism does, it's just the exact antithesis of it - equally dogmatic). IMO, neither are necessarily religions in that neither mandates trust/reliance/faith. Theoretically, one could hold to theism but not trust or rely on such (probably best seen in Deism or in a Unitarian/Universalist I know - who believes in the divine but not in divine intervention); and I suppose one could reference Confusianism or even Taoism as "religions" that are essentially godless. But whether these are RELIGIONS or not is entirely beside the point and a topic for another thread.

Atheism IS a bold, dogmatic declaration and proclamation: GOD IS NOT. In the same way that Theism is: GOD IS. (The "A" or lack thereof making these two equal but opposite views). Again, it's nonsensical to insist, "The number of grains of sand on the beaches is NOT odd but I don't know and have no position on whether the grains of sand on the beaches is odd or even." Whatever reasons there might be for such a nonsensical, illogical ploy - it's impossible.




- Josiah




.

 

[MarkFL]

To use your earlier example, one logically cannot insist: "I don't know if the number of sands on the beaches is odd or even" and then equally state, "The number of grains of sand is not odd." That's nonsensical, illogical, contradictive.

No, what I state is that there is insufficient evidence for me to accept any claim regarding the parity of the number of grains of sand. This doesn't mean I make a claim myself...I am merely rejecting any claim made regarding the parity of the number because of lack of evidence. The same with theism...because of the lack of evidence, I reject any claim made regarding gods...I am without belief in the claim of theism, hence I am an atheist.

 

[MoreCoffee]

No, what I state is that there is insufficient evidence for me to accept any claim regarding the parity of the number of grains of sand. This doesn't mean I make a claim myself...I am merely rejecting any claim made regarding the parity of the number because of lack of evidence. The same with theism...because of the lack of evidence, I reject any claim made regarding gods...I am without belief in theism, hence I am an atheist.

I claim that there is either an even or an odd number of grains of sand in the Sahara desert

There! I made a claim about number and also about parity. Furthermore I claim that the number of grains of sand in the Sahara desert is countable in principle

 

[MarkFL]

I claim that there is either an even or an odd number of grains of sand in the Sahara desert

There! I made a claim about number and also about parity. Furthermore I claim that the number of grains of sand in the Sahara desert is countable in principle

I accept both your claims. :thumbsup:

 

[Josiah]

Respectfully, friend, it puzzles me that you'd want to go to such enormous lengths to TRY to evade the obvious, the undeniable. Even the quotes you provided state the obvious but then try to run from it... I can't for the life of me think why.


IF you want to insist that you deny God, insist God is NOT - then you are an Atheist. IF you simply want to say you have no conclusions, no proclamations, no view, no claims (the proverbial verdict is "out") so that you neither deny or embrace either view, that's called Agnosticism. But these are mutually exclusive ideas: To use your earlier example, one logically cannot insist: "I don't know if the number of sands on the beaches is odd or even" and then equally state, "The number of grains of sand is not odd." That's nonsensical, illogical, contradictive.


I wonder if some do this to play "both sides" - they WANT to be on record as denying God but don't want to be accountable for it, don't want others to insist the Atheist do what the Atheist insists of the Theist, "prove it"? They want to "dodge" the accountability/proof issue they demand on those with the opposite view, the Theists? I don't know. I raised this possibility, I noted that when I picked up on your sand illustration by noting the hypocrisy of the Atheist insisting , "I deny the number of gains of sand is odd, so 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.." Maybe the "I dogmatically insist God is NOT.... but I don't hold any position on that" is to try to accomplish that? I don't know. It's odd.... it's a puzzle... it's nonsensical.....



Again, Mark, it seems you are confusing Atheism with Acredoism. Atheism does NOT say, "I choose to not BELIEVE in God - who equally may or may not exist." No. It's a very bold claim and position, a dogmatic proclamation: "God is NOT" As you correctly noted, "A" (not, denial) "Theism" (God, divine) = God is NOT.


Atheism IS a bold, dogmatic declaration and proclamation: GOD IS NOT. In the same way that Theism is: GOD IS. (The "A" or lack thereof making these two equal but opposite views). Again, it's nonsensical to insist, "The number of grains of sand on the beaches is NOT odd but I don't know and have no position on whether the grains of sand on the beaches is odd or even." Whatever reasons there might be for such a nonsensical, illogical ploy - it's impossible.



.

No, what I state is that there is insufficient evidence for me to accept any claim regarding the parity of the number of grains of sand..... .I am merely rejecting anyclaim made

Then you aren't a Atheist. Again, it's nonsensical to insist, "The number of grains of sand on the beaches is NOT odd but I don't know and have no position on whether the grains of sand on the beaches is odd or even and reject ANY and ALL claims and positions about that." Whatever reasons there might be for such a nonsensical, illogical ploy - it's impossible.

It's nonsensical and illogical to insist, "The number of grains of sand IS NOT ODD (a bold claim, a dogmatic proclamation that it's NOT odd) AND that you don't know which it is. It's not only confusing - it's nonsensical, illogical and certainly causes all to wonder what "game" is being played, what is trying to be avoided (could it be the very think Atheists keep demanding: prove your position?).



- Josiah



.

 

[MarkFL]

Again, it's nonsensical to insist, "The number of grains of sand on the beaches is NOT odd

WOW! Again and again and again...and again, I am not claiming the number is not odd, I am rejecting the claim that it is odd. Huge, but apparently elusive/subtle difference there.

 

[Josiah]

Then you aren't a Atheist.

Again, it's nonsensical to insist, "The number of grains of sand on the beaches is NOT odd but I don't know and have no position on whether the grains of sand on the beaches is odd or even and reject ANY and ALL claims and positions about that." Whatever reasons there might be for such a nonsensical, illogical ploy - it's impossible.

It's nonsensical and illogical to insist, "The number of grains of sand IS NOT ODD (a bold claim, a dogmatic proclamation that it's NOT odd) AND that you don't know which it is. It's not only confusing - it's nonsensical, illogical and certainly causes all to wonder what "game" is being played, what is trying to be avoided (could it be the very think Atheists keep demanding: prove your position?).


.

I am not claiming the number is not odd

Thus the application of your illustration reveals you are not an Atheist.

I am rejecting the claim that it is odd. Huge, but apparently elusive/subtle difference there.

An Atheist has a claim - a very bold, dogmatic claim.... a proclamation: GOD IS NOT. That is a claim, a position, a declaration, a proclamation. If you aren't making that claim, if that's not your position - then you aren't an Atheist.

If Theism is a claim, a position, a declaration - then it's nonsensical, absurd to insist that the antithesis of that, Atheism ("A" in front negates, makes it NOT) is unrelated.

Your equal claim that you are ALSO an Agnostic may be true, you've been very illusive about that, I don't know. But they cannot be both true. You cannot reject a claim but make one.... it's nonsensical (and certainly confusing - and we must wonder WHY the desire to be confusing). It's absurd to insist (to use your illustration), "The number is NOT odd.... but I make no claims, I have no position, I say nothing about whether it is odd or even and I denounce any who makes any claim about this." It's nonsense, it's double-talk, it's a contradiction. You claim others are of late using this same double-speak, contradiction, nonsense (and that may be) but it's nonetheless confusing at best and just nonsensical. Either you actually are one or the other, or there's some REASON for the confusing, nonsensical, contradictive doublespeak - perhaps to try to be an Atheist who dodges the "proof" Atheists typically demand for their antithesis, Theists? I don't know.




- Josiah


.

 

[MarkFL]

I make no claim regarding the existence of god/gods. I reject the claim that there is/are god/gods on lack of evidence (making me an atheist by definition), yet make no claim myself, based on the same lack of evidence (making me also agnostic). A "strong" or "hard" atheist makes a claim, but most atheists (those who are without theism) make no claim.

 

[Tigger]

Love ya Mark but not only have I considered myself agnostic but there was a time I considered myself atheist also. Since becoming a Christian I've debated atheists a time or two and one thing I do know is they make me cross every (t) and dot every (i). It seems to me that atheists have recently redefined the terms agnostic and atheist to avoid being on the defensive about their own position putting them perpetually on the offensive forcing their opponents to always be in a defensive posture. In boxing it would be hard for me to rule as a judge that we ever even had a boxing match in the first place, therefore ruling it a no contest, being that only one fighter was allowed to throw strikes. I think redefining terms, virtually creating a word shell game isn't a tactic I'm willing to allow my opponent to exercise and must be addressed before the discussion ever begins so all parties start on even ground.

 

[Rens]

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.

Weird, that's in America. I noticed it on forums. Here it's so common, noone will say no you're not an atheist or be prejudiced. Christians are a minority here.
Well except my mom, she just says my dad beliefs hahaha in God. He's so used to it, he just puts up a funny face and then I say yes he's a believer, he just doesn't realize it LOL.

 

[Josiah]

Mark -


Atheism IS a bold, dogmatic declaration and proclamation: GOD IS NOT. In the same way that Theism is: GOD IS. (The "A" or lack thereof making these two equal but opposite views). Again, it's nonsensical to insist, "The number of grains of sand on the beaches is NOT odd but I don't know and have no position on whether the grains of sand on the beaches is odd or even." Whatever reasons there might be for such a nonsensical, illogical ploy - it's impossible.

I wonder - just wonder - if some do this to play "both sides" - they WANT to be on record as denying God but don't want to be accountable for it, don't want others to insist the Atheist do what the Atheist insists of the Theist, "prove it"? Perhaps they want to "dodge" the accountability/proof issue they themselves perpetually demand on those with the opposite view, the Theists ???? I don't know. I raised this possibility, I noted that when I picked up on your sand illustration by noting the hypocrisy of the Atheist insisting , "I deny the number of gains of sand is odd, so 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.." Maybe the "I dogmatically insist God is NOT.... but I don't hold any position on that" is to try to accomplish that? I don't know. It's odd.... it's a puzzle... it's nonsensical.....


.

Mark -

Your equal claim that you are ALSO an Agnostic may be true, you've been very illusive about that, I don't know. But they cannot be both true. You cannot reject a claim but make one.... it's nonsensical (and certainly confusing - and we must wonder WHY the doublespeak, why the desire to be confusing. It's absurd to insist (to use your illustration), "The number is NOT odd.... but I make no claims, I have no position, I say nothing about whether it is odd or even and I denounce any who makes any claim about this." It's nonsense, it's double-talk, it's a contradiction. You claim others are of late using this same double-speak, contradiction, nonsense (and that may be) but it's nonetheless confusing at best and just nonsensical. Either you actually are one or the other, or there's some REASON for the confusing, nonsensical, contradictive doublespeak - perhaps to try to be an Atheist who dodges the "proof" Atheists typically demand for their antithesis, Theists? I don't know.



.

[to Mark]

Love ya Mark but not only have I considered myself agnostic but there was a time I considered myself atheist also. Since becoming a Christian I've debated atheists a time or two and one thing I do know is they make me cross every (t) and dot every (i). It seems to me that atheists have recently redefined the terms agnostic and atheist to avoid being on the defensive about their own position putting them perpetually on the offensive forcing their opponents to always be in a defensive posture. In boxing it would be hard for me to rule as a judge that we ever even had a boxing match in the first place, therefore ruling it a no contest, being that only one fighter was allowed to throw strikes. I think redefining terms, virtually creating a word shell game isn't a tactic I'm willing to allow my opponent to exercise and must be addressed before the discussion ever begins so all parties start on even ground.


.

I can theorize no other reason than the reason you present, Tigger.


I've never been an atheist or agnostic (unlike you, my friend).... and I've had few discussions with Atheists, more with Agnostics.... but I've never heard this weird doublespeak before - it was new to me - of one trying to claim to be both agnostic and atheist, it has to be one of the weirdest things I've heard or read. MUST be some reason for the doublespeak... and I can't theorize any except the one you presented, Tigger.


Yes, it does have that function: permitting both a bold declaration and a basic to scream to others "PROVE IT!!! Cross every 't' and dot every 'i' and do it ONLY with things I accept!" I raised that earlier by my using Mark's illustration, "I deny the number of gains of sand is odd, so 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." Atheists DO tend to have this obsession with proving positions - absolutely, definitively - and forbidding anything that they don't accept (thus insuring their position is not challenged). This new ploy allows that - while also allowing them to dodge any accountability themselves, they can run back and forth to "I make no claim" in that case. There's a term for this in debate, I just can't recall right now what it's called.


I don't believe everyone who uses this doublespeak has that intent (some just "copy/paste" not knowing or sharing the original intent), but obviously it's nonsensical and surely must have (or had) a reason for it - in spite of being clearly nonsensical?


Thanks, Tigger.



- Josiah





.


.

 

[MarkFL]

Love ya Mark but not only have I considered myself agnostic but there was a time I considered myself atheist also. Since becoming a Christian I've debated atheists a time or two and one thing I do know is they make me cross every (t) and dot every (i). It seems to me that atheists have recently redefined the terms agnostic and atheist to avoid being on the defensive about their own position putting them perpetually on the offensive forcing their opponents to always be in a defensive posture. In boxing it would be hard for me to rule as a judge that we ever even had a boxing match in the first place, therefore ruling it a no contest, being that only one fighter was allowed to throw strikes. I think redefining terms, virtually creating a word shell game isn't a tactic I'm willing to allow my opponent to exercise and must be addressed before the discussion ever begins so all parties start on even ground.

I am atheist, because I don't accept the claim of theism, however I make no claim myself (I am an agnostic atheist). Only those making a claim have some burden of proof if they wish to convince others of some reason to share their belief. When you make a claim, you should expect to have some burden of proof...that's just how it works. Here's a video that accurately describes who has the burden of proof and why:

 

[Josiah]

Mark.... again..... it seems you want it both ways..... the doublespeak.

If you don't know, then you don't know. Gnosis = to know, A = not, no.

If you hold there is the divine, then you hold to that position: Theos = GOD. Theism = God is.

If you hold there is no divine, then you hold to that position: Theos = God. A = not, no.

These are mutually exclusive positions. I don't know the reason for the doublespeak, the dodge, the evasion.

I suspect Tigger is right (I theorized it before, you never responded to such), I suspect Tigger gives the reason why this doublespeak, this nonsense has evidently recently become a ploy - although I don't claim you personally use it that way.



Let's try it again....

"There is no life on Mars." Abioism. A dogmatic proclamation.
"There is life on Mars." Bioism. A dogmatic proclamation (equally so, just the antithesis)
"I don't currently know if there is or is not life on Mars, both possibilities exists." Agnosticism. (Rejects and embraces NEITHER position).

It's nonsense, it's doublespeak to insist, "There is NO life on Mars and I don't know if there is or is not life on Mars - both possibilities exist." Read what Tigger posted to you, my friend, as to why some might want to use that ploy, that doublespeak - as nonsensical as it obviously is.




- Josiah

 

[MarkFL]

Josiah, I have tried my best to explain my position to you, but you aren't hearing it for whatever reason. Point to a positive claim I have made regarding theism. Here is my position:

I reject the claim of theism (based on lack of evidence), therefore I am an atheist.

I have no knowledge regarding the existence of a god or gods, therefore on this matter I am agnostic.

Where is my positive claim regarding theism?

Watch the video I posted to gain an understanding of why my position has no burden of proof while yours does. You will see there is no ploy, at least not from my position.

 

[Josiah]

Where is my positive claim regarding theism?

Obviously nowhere, but you don't state you are a Theist (God Is)..... you insist you are an Atheist (God is NOT).
You ALSO, equally, concurrently, claim to be an Agnostic so you have no position on whether the divine is or is not but hold that both positions are possible, affirming or denying neither.


No, friend, it's not a case of not "hearing" you, it's a case of not welcoming the nonsensical doublespeak. For whatever reason, you are dodging the obvious nonsense. Tigger gave a reasonable reply to why such might now be a ploy for some.


Let's try it this way...
Yes/No. Do you join in proclaiming that the divine IS?
Yes/No. Do you join in proclaiming that the divine is NOT?
Yes/No. Do you join in proclaiming that both positions are possible but you neither embrace or deny either; you simply don't know to a sufficient level to say?
Friend, these are mutually exclusive positions, it is logically impossible to hold to two concurrently. It is nonsense to insist (to use your illustration): "the number of sands on the beach is not odd but it is not known if the number of sands on the beach is odd or even - both are possible." That's a contradiction, it's illogical, it's nonsense. But there MUST be some reason for that new game, that ploy - however nonsensical. See Tigger's post above.






Mark, my friend....

Now...... trying to bring in the sidebars that some here have posted (reasonably)..... trying AGAIN, yet AGAIN to "tie" this to the opening post..... yes, while Theism and Atheism are bold proclamations, to get uber-philosophical about this, a case can be made that probably either can be objectively held to a philosophical ABSOLUTE (and the Theist never claims that; heck I can't PROVE to that level, in that way, that I even exist, much less God) - yes, in THAT uber-philosphical sense, we are all "agnostics" in varying degrees - our "certainty" is relative. I and others admitted that (you ignored it) - but then I refer you AGAIN to Tigger's post above. This new ploy, it seems, is to claim BOTH to deny the divine AND claim to not know one way or the other. What could be the reason for that persistent doublespeak other than what Tigger presented ?????????

Perhaps it would be more - I hesitate to say this; know NO disrespect at all intended - more intellectually honest, more instructive and more constructive to rather say, "I consider myself RELATIVELY more Atheist but admit this is not an issue - one way or the other - that seems provable, to an absolute at least." IF you had said that, we'd probably all say "Amen" and mutual respect would be increased. Indeed, I tried (repeatedly) to affirm that - yes, ultimately (in that uber-philosophical sense) we all walk by faith, we are all believers. Instead.... we see this new persistent doublespeak, this obvious nonsense, and must wonder WHY? Being that Atheists seem to have an obsession with materialistic, natural PROOF - constantly DEMANDING proof of a nature that insures nothing can be presented that will upset the faith/belief/assumptions/worldview of the Atheist.... I agree with Tigger, this ploy probably can have no other purpose but to skirt around that, so that the Theist cannot seek the same absolute PROOF (using only evidence they would accept) for the Atheist position, to insure one boxer hits hard but the other has his hands tied?

Consider this, my esteemed friend....




- Josiah




.

 

[MarkFL]

See, it just boils down to your lack of understand about what atheism actually is. You insist on making atheism in general to coincide only with strong atheism. My position is "I do not believe there is.are god/gods" not "I believe there is/are no god/gods" but then I have said that so many times and you have read past it every time, why I don't know. As long as one does not accept the claim of theism, then that person is an atheist. Atheism isn't as narrow as you stubbornly insist.

 

[Rens]

You're a believer in God or you're not. If MarkFL is not not a believer in God you should act as stupid as my mom and call him a christian who isn't aware he is one lol.

 

[MarkFL]

You're a believer in God or you're not. If MarkFL is not not a believer in God you should act as stupid as my mom and call him a christian who isn't aware he is one lol.

Calling me a Christian would be no more misguided than insisting all atheists make any claim regarding the existence of god/gods. Both are just simply wrong. I can only hope others can see the difference between rejecting a claim and claiming the opposite of a stated claim. To me the distinction is glaring, and I would have thought it would at least be obvious to everyone else. :dunno:

 

[MarkFL]

Weird, that's in America. I noticed it on forums. Here it's so common, noone will say no you're not an atheist or be prejudiced. Christians are a minority here.
Well except my mom, she just says my dad beliefs hahaha in God. He's so used to it, he just puts up a funny face and then I say yes he's a believer, he just doesn't realize it LOL.

I does kind of strike me odd that I need to identify myself as something I'm not, rather than something I am. I reject many unsubstantiated claims, and fortunately I don't have to wear a label for all of those as well. :scratchchin: