Myth: Atheism is a Denial of God That Requires Faith

[Josiah]

Josiah is saying that atheism is a belief that there are no gods

No. Friend, it's you who keeps confusing verbs with nouns. And friend, belief is not propositions and thus has no burden or proof (although in common practice, is normally held as credible, reasonable). As you know, Theism is the proposition that GOD IS (it's what the word means, it is the literal and sole and universal and exclusive and historic meaning (although it could be some individual "stripped" that of meaning about 100 years ago, too). When a "a" is placed in front of a proposition, it negates it, denies it (I think you already agreed with that), creating an opposite proposition, in this case "No God" or "God is NOT." Agnosticism is neutrality, not taking a stance, not making a proposition at all.

So there are three fundamental ways to respond to the issue of the divine: God is, God is NOT, No position - not affirming or denying either propositionally. These are mutually exclusive positions. Sure, a man in 1888 can have a "felt need" to "STRIP" one of the words of its meaning...... perhaps to confuse or deceive, perhaps to deflect the issue of substantiation, certainly semantic gymnastics can be played to confuse or evade.

Josiah is holding on to the baggage added to the word

What you call "baggage" IS the actual, literal, universal, historic and sole meaning until one guy in 1888 "STRIPPED" it of meaning. That's the claim these few very modern "Atheists" make - there was a felt need to STRIP the word of its meaning, to impose all these semantic gymnastics. I simply asked WHY all the semantic games? WHY insist on labeling self an "Atheist" then define that so that's it's actually Agnosticism? I asked you repeatedly. Tigger (a former Atheist) presented a theory, which you chose to not comment on, but it seems you went on to essentially agree with him: So one can be BOTH and Atheist and - equally and concurrently - an Agnostic, switching back and forth in order to hold to Atheism but dodge the accountability and substantiation issue by running over to the Agnostic label.


IMO, if one is an Agnostic (making no dogmatic proposition, not denying or affirming either view, "final verdict is still out") then I think it at least good for understanding to note that that one is an Agnostic. And yes, then there is no "burden of proof." And IMO, if one is an Atheist (yes - unless we copy/paste the "STRIPPED" of meaning semantic gymnastics) is one who denies God, then I think it at least good for understanding to note that that one is an Atheist. And yes, all propositions have a burden of proof. And IMO, if one is a Theist (yes - not "STRIPPING" the word of its meaning) that one affirms the supernatural, then I think it at least good for understanding to note that that one is thus a Theist. And yes, thus has a burden of proof.

But these are three mutually exclusive view: it is nonsense, it is illogical, it is a contradiction, and it is likely just a PLOY, a GAME done for a reason to STRIP and CONFUSE them. "I deny the supernatural and take no stance on whether the supernatural exists or not" is absurd.

One must ask: Why would this Atheist in 1888 have a "felt need" to "STRIP" the word, the view of its meaning (what Mark likes to call "baggage" rather than "meaning" - more semantic gymnastics)? Why would a man who's position is 100% classic Agnosticism insist on being called an Atheist? Could it be he's NOT an Atheist or an Agnostic? What game is being played here? Does this hinder or help understanding and communication? What is the PURPOSE of all this gymnastics, all the games, all the "STRIPPING"? Again..... it seems it has to do with evading the "proof" issue, the very issue Atheists, in my experience, OBSESS over and DEMAND of the one with the antithetical proposition, the Theist?

The issue here is simple, clear and unavoidable: Either the position is: God IS or God is NOT or you don't take either position dogmatically - they are called Theism, Atheism, Agnosticism. They are mutually exclusive and distinctive positions. All the rest of the mess you quoted is just attempts to "strip," to evade, to hide, to pretend and to set up a double standard.


IMO, this "stripping" this Atheist man did in 1888 (copy/pasted by a few Atheists today) is at best confusing, misleading, semantic gymnastics.... and at worst, a deceptive ploy to evade the issue of proof they so obsess about for everyone else. IF it was really a case of this man and some today realizing they are actually Agnostics - they'd simply refer to themselves as Agnostic. If they held no position, they'd exclusively and solely use the word for not holding a position: "Agnostic." There's something obviously amiss - this "felt need" - that creates all this semantic gymnastics, this "STRIPPING" of meaning.... some purpose in holding to two contradictory things equally and concurrently.... and I think Tigger and perhaps Mark have the best theory about this: to evade the issue of substantiation. I just find some irony in that, since in my experience, NO ONE THE PLANET seem more obsessed with the issue of PROOF than Atheists, hounding Theists for PROOF of the supernatural.

IMO, I have not seen anything from Mark in any post I've read from him that remotely even suggests he is an Atheist, although I know he likes to use this very new, very weird label "Atheist/Agnostic" (and that certainly is his "right"). And I've never found Mark to display the approach and attitude that characterizes the Atheists I've "met" (all I think online) - the hate, anger, mockery, ridicule and constant haranguing about PROVE the Supernatural - and you can only use the natural to do it! The constant ridicule about the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus. No, I've found Mark to be generally like the Agnostics known to me (which are hundreds) - honest, thoughtful, respectful people who have no "issues" at all with Theists, they simply conclude there is insufficient reasons to join Theists in this affirmation. But Mark must have some reason to need that Atheist pov. He seemed to suggest this has to do with evading accountability, the burden of proof.


IMO, rather than all these incredible, very recent semantic gymnastics, all this "felt need" to "STRIP" words of what they admit is the meaning, all this combination of mutually exclusive positions..... this unwillingness to identify exclusively with Agnosticism when their point seems to be they hold no dogmatic proposition.... maybe it would be more descriptive, more honest, display more intellectual honesty and integrity and CERTAINLY be better communication to simply say what they are (and I suspect in most cases, that's Agnostic). But then, the ability to dodge back and forth between demanding proof and evading the same would be eliminated? They couldn't hold to the Atheist view AND hold to none concurrently?

Josiah is using an antiquated definition

No, Lamm. Even in MODERN dictionaries (which only convey how the word MIGHT - even by a tiny, tiny minority - be USED, correctly or incorrectly) all give the right meaning, too. And it has been admitted already that was the ONLY and universal meaning - the word - for centuries (until 1888 to be exact). They may give some "STRIPPED" usage too but that doesn't make the literal, historic, universal, UNSTRIPPED meaning that ALL used and most still do as "antiquated."

It's these few modern folk who state that word was "STRIPPED" of its meaning (Mark calls "meaning" "baggage" but what he calls "baggage" IS the meaning). So, I'm using the word WITH its meaning, before this man in 1888 had this "felt need' to STRIP it of meaning.




- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

The Creed is full of propositions that Christians believe.

I believe in God the Father Almighty ... and in Jesus Christ our Lord ... the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of the saints, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.

Those are propositions about what one believes. And for most Christians they are also propositions about God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit and the church and so forth being realities that everybody ought to believe because they are real and true.

 

[Rens]

Besides the spelling being the same, is there any similarities between MarkFL's and Josiah's definitions that can be agreed upon?

It has something to do with God.

 

[MarkFL]

A-Theism. A = NO, not, denial. Theos = GOD. An equal but antithethical affirmation or belief that God is NOT, there is NO God...

Josiah is saying that atheism is a belief that there are no gods...

No...

At this point, I don't think you actually know what you're saying...all you know is you are disagreeing with me. oke:

Ain't nobody got time for that...

 

[Rens]

No. Friend, it's you who keeps confusing verbs with nouns. And friend, belief is not propositions and thus has no burden or proof (although in common practice, is normally held as credible, reasonable). As you know, Theism is the proposition that GOD IS (it's what the word means, it is the literal and sole and universal and exclusive and historic meaning (although it could be some individual "stripped" that of meaning about 100 years ago, too). When a "a" is placed in front of a proposition, it negates it, denies it (I think you already agreed with that), creating an opposite proposition, in this case "No God" or "God is NOT." Agnosticism is neutrality, not taking a stance, not making a proposition at all.

So there are three fundamental ways to respond to the issue of the divine: God is, God is NOT, No position - not affirming or denying either propositionally. These are mutually exclusive positions. Sure, a man in 1888 can have a "felt need" to "STRIP" one of the words of its meaning...... perhaps to confuse or deceive, perhaps to deflect the issue of substantiation, certainly semantic gymnastics can be played to confuse or evade.







What you call "baggage" IS the actual, literal, universal, historic and sole meaning until one guy in 1888 "STRIPPED" it of meaning. That's the claim these few very modern "Atheists" make - there was a felt need to STRIP the word of its meaning, to impose all these semantic gymnastics. I simply asked WHY all the semantic games? WHY insist on labeling self an "Atheist" then define that so that's it's actually Agnosticism? I asked you repeatedly. Tigger (a former Atheist) presented a theory, which you chose to not comment on, but it seems you went on to essentially agree with him: So one can be BOTH and Atheist and - equally and concurrently - an Agnostic, switching back and forth in order to hold to Atheism but dodge the accountability and substantiation issue by running over to the Agnostic label.


IMO, if one is an Agnostic (making no dogmatic proposition, not denying or affirming either view, "final verdict is still out") then I think it at least good for understanding to note that that one is an Agnostic. And yes, then there is no "burden of proof." And IMO, if one is an Atheist (yes - unless we copy/paste the "STRIPPED" of meaning semantic gymnastics) is one who denies God, then I think it at least good for understanding to note that that one is an Atheist. And yes, all propositions have a burden of proof. And IMO, if one is a Theist (yes - not "STRIPPING" the word of its meaning) that one affirms the supernatural, then I think it at least good for understanding to note that that one is thus a Theist. And yes, thus has a burden of proof.

But these are three mutually exclusive view: it is nonsense, it is illogical, it is a contradiction, and it is likely just a PLOY, a GAME done for a reason to STRIP and CONFUSE them. "I deny the supernatural and take no stance on whether the supernatural exists or not" is absurd.

One must ask: Why would this Atheist in 1888 have a "felt need" to "STRIP" the word, the view of its meaning (what Mark likes to call "baggage" rather than "meaning" - more semantic gymnastics)? Why would a man who's position is 100% classic Agnosticism insist on being called an Atheist? Could it be he's NOT an Atheist or an Agnostic? What game is being played here? Does this hinder or help understanding and communication? What is the PURPOSE of all this gymnastics, all the games, all the "STRIPPING"? Again..... it seems it has to do with evading the "proof" issue, the very issue Atheists, in my experience, OBSESS over and DEMAND of the one with the antithetical proposition, the Theist?

The issue here is simple, clear and unavoidable: Either the position is: God IS or God is NOT or you don't take either position dogmatically - they are called Theism, Atheism, Agnosticism. They are mutually exclusive and distinctive positions. All the rest of the mess you quoted is just attempts to "strip," to evade, to hide, to pretend and to set up a double standard.


IMO, this "stripping" this Atheist man did in 1888 (copy/pasted by a few Atheists today) is at best confusing, misleading, semantic gymnastics.... and at worst, a deceptive ploy to evade the issue of proof they so obsess about for everyone else. IF it was really a case of this man and some today realizing they are actually Agnostics - they'd simply refer to themselves as Agnostic. If they held no position, they'd exclusively and solely use the word for not holding a position: "Agnostic." There's something obviously amiss - this "felt need" - that creates all this semantic gymnastics, this "STRIPPING" of meaning.... some purpose in holding to two contradictory things equally and concurrently.... and I think Tigger and perhaps Mark have the best theory about this: to evade the issue of substantiation. I just find some irony in that, since in my experience, NO ONE THE PLANET seem more obsessed with the issue of PROOF than Atheists, hounding Theists for PROOF of the supernatural.

IMO, I have not seen anything from Mark in any post I've read from him that remotely even suggests he is an Atheist, although I know he likes to use this very new, very weird label "Atheist/Agnostic" (and that certainly is his "right"). And I've never found Mark to display the approach and attitude that characterizes the Atheists I've "met" (all I think online) - the hate, anger, mockery, ridicule and constant haranguing about PROVE the Supernatural - and you can only use the natural to do it! The constant ridicule about the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus. No, I've found Mark to be generally like the Agnostics known to me (which are hundreds) - honest, thoughtful, respectful people who have no "issues" at all with Theists, they simply conclude there is insufficient reasons to join Theists in this affirmation. But Mark must have some reason to need that Atheist pov. He seemed to suggest this has to do with evading accountability, the burden of proof.


IMO, rather than all these incredible, very recent semantic gymnastics, all this "felt need" to "STRIP" words of what they admit is the meaning, all this combination of mutually exclusive positions..... this unwillingness to identify exclusively with Agnosticism when their point seems to be they hold no dogmatic proposition.... maybe it would be more descriptive, more honest, display more intellectual honesty and integrity and CERTAINLY be better communication to simply say what they are (and I suspect in most cases, that's Agnostic). But then, the ability to dodge back and forth between demanding proof and evading the same would be eliminated? They couldn't hold to the Atheist view AND hold to none concurrently?







No, Lamm. Even in MODERN dictionaries (which only convey how the word MIGHT - even by a tiny, tiny minority - be USED, correctly or incorrectly) all give the right meaning, too. And it has been admitted already that was the ONLY and universal meaning - the word - for centuries (until 1888 to be exact). They may give some "STRIPPED" usage too but that doesn't make the literal, historic, universal, UNSTRIPPED meaning that ALL used and most still do as "antiquated."

It's these few modern folk who state that word was "STRIPPED" of its meaning (Mark calls "meaning" "baggage" but what he calls "baggage" IS the meaning). So, I'm using the word WITH its meaning, before this man in 1888 had this "felt need' to STRIP it of meaning.




- Josiah

Atheists obsess and demand....
that's just some sort of atheists on forums. Just had a great conversation with them again. I missed it. After all the complaints and telling what a bad job God did I posted this:

 

[MarkFL]

How dare those pesky atheists demand you give evidence for your claim. Haven't they heard the good word that theism is exempt from that?

 

[Rens]

How dare those pesky atheists demand you give evidence for your claim. Haven't they heard the good word that theism is exempt from that?

Lol I just told one who wanted proof that Jesus rose from the dead to as a real scientist go to Africa and investigate if those stories are true from people who were dead for 3 days. If Jesus is dead people can't be risen from the dead in His Name. Lazy I know, I'm just as lazy as him, because he isn't really interested, but only there to make a point and I'm looking for an excuse. We should do the same here.

 

[Rens]

How on earth can you prove it? If someone dies and they raise him they're not gonna wait 3 days so atheists have nice evidence. Only thing would be growing out a limb. But believers don't believe that either, even the ones that say they do, otherwise they would have done it.

 

[Josiah]

No. Friend, it's you who keeps confusing verbs with nouns. Verbs need to have an object, and it's that object that is likely the proposition. You continue to dodge the proposition by hiding behind a dangling verb. And friend, belief is not propositions and thus has no burden or proof (although in common practice, is normally held as credible, reasonable).


As you know, Theism is the proposition that GOD IS (it's what the word means, it is the literal and sole and universal and exclusive and historic meaning (although it could be some individual "stripped" that of meaning about 100 years ago, too). When a "a" is placed in front of a proposition, it negates it, denies it (I think you already agreed with that), creating an opposite proposition, in this case Atheism - "No God" or "God is NOT." Agnosticism is neutrality, not taking a stance, not making a proposition at all.

So there are three fundamental ways to respond to the issue of the divine: God is, God is NOT, No position - not affirming or denying either propositionally. These are mutually exclusive positions. Sure, a man in 1888 can have a "felt need" to "STRIP" one of the words of its meaning...... perhaps to confuse or deceive, perhaps to deflect the issue of substantiation, certainly semantic gymnastics can be played to confuse or evade.




What you call "baggage" IS the actual, literal, universal, historic and sole meaning until one guy in 1888 had a "felt need" to "STRIP" it of meaning. That's the claim these few very modern "Atheists" make - there was a felt need to STRIP the word of its meaning, to impose all these semantic gymnastics. I simply asked WHY all the semantic games? WHY this "felt need?" WHY the need to "STRIP" words of their meaning? WHY insist on labeling self an "Atheist" then define that so that's it's actually Agnosticism? I asked you repeatedly. Tigger (a former Atheist) presented a theory, which you chose to not comment on, but it seems you went on to essentially agree with him: So one can be BOTH and Atheist and - equally and concurrently - an Agnostic, switching back and forth in order to hold to Atheism but dodge the accountability and substantiation issue by running over to the Agnostic label.


IMO, if one is an Agnostic (making no dogmatic proposition, not denying or affirming either view, "final verdict is still out") then I think it at least good for understanding to note that that one is an Agnostic. And yes, then there is no "burden of proof." And IMO, if one is an Atheist (yes - unless we copy/paste the "STRIPPED" of meaning semantic gymnastics) is one who denies God, then I think it at least good for understanding to note that that one is an Atheist. And yes, all propositions have a burden of proof. And IMO, if one is a Theist (yes - not "STRIPPING" the word of its meaning) that one affirms the supernatural, then I think it at least good for understanding to note that that one is thus a Theist. And yes, thus has a burden of proof.

But these are three mutually exclusive view: it is nonsense, it is illogical, it is a contradiction, and it is likely just a PLOY, a GAME done for a reason to STRIP and CONFUSE them. "I deny the supernatural and take no stance on whether the supernatural exists or not" is absurd.

One must ask: Why would this Atheist in 1888 have a "felt need" to "STRIP" the word, the view of its meaning (what Mark likes to call "baggage" rather than "meaning" - more semantic gymnastics)? Why would a man who's position is 100% classic Agnosticism insist on being called an Atheist? Could it be he's NOT an Atheist or an Agnostic? What game is being played here? Does this hinder or help understanding and communication? What is the PURPOSE of all this gymnastics, all the games, all the "STRIPPING"? Again..... it seems it has to do with evading the "proof" issue, the very issue Atheists, in my experience, OBSESS over and DEMAND of the one with the antithetical proposition, the Theist?

The issue here is simple, clear and unavoidable: Either the position is: God IS or God is NOT or you don't take either position dogmatically - they are called Theism, Atheism, Agnosticism. They are mutually exclusive and distinctive positions. All the rest of the mess you quoted is just attempts to "strip," to evade, to hide, to pretend and to set up a double standard.



IMO, this "stripping" this Atheist man did in 1888 (copy/pasted by a few Atheists today) is at best confusing, misleading, semantic gymnastics.... and at worst, a deceptive ploy to evade the issue of proof they so obsess about for everyone else. IF it was really a case of this man and some today realizing they are actually Agnostics - they'd simply refer to themselves as Agnostic. If they held no position, they'd exclusively and solely use the word for not holding a position: "Agnostic." There's something obviously amiss - this "felt need" - that creates all this semantic gymnastics, this "STRIPPING" of meaning.... some purpose in holding to two contradictory things equally and concurrently.... and I think Tigger and perhaps Mark have the best theory about this: to evade the issue of substantiation. I just find some irony in that, since in my experience, NO ONE THE PLANET seem more obsessed with the issue of PROOF than Atheists, hounding Theists for PROOF of the supernatural.


IMO, I have not seen anything from Mark in any post I've read from him that remotely even suggests he is an Atheist, although I know he likes to use this very new, very weird label "Atheist/Agnostic" (and that certainly is his "right"). And I've never found Mark to display the approach and attitude that characterizes the Atheists I've "met" (all I think online) - the hate, anger, mockery, ridicule and constant haranguing about PROVE the Supernatural - and you can only use the natural to do it! The constant ridicule about the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus. No, I've found Mark to be generally like the Agnostics known to me (which are hundreds) - honest, thoughtful, respectful people who have no "issues" at all with Theists, they simply conclude there is insufficient reasons to join Theists in this affirmation. But Mark must have some reason to need that Atheist pov. He seemed to suggest this has to do with evading accountability, the burden of proof.


IMO, rather than all these incredible, very recent semantic gymnastics, all this "felt need" to "STRIP" words of what they admit is the meaning, all this combination of mutually exclusive positions..... this unwillingness to identify exclusively with Agnosticism when their point seems to be they hold no dogmatic proposition.... maybe it would be more descriptive, more honest, display more intellectual honesty and integrity and CERTAINLY be better communication to simply say what they are (and I suspect in most cases, that's Agnostic). But then, the ability to dodge back and forth between demanding proof and evading the same would be eliminated? They couldn't hold to the Atheist view AND hold to none concurrently?







No, Lamm. Even in MODERN dictionaries (which only convey how the word MIGHT - even by a tiny, tiny minority - be USED, correctly or incorrectly) all give the right meaning, too. And it has been admitted already that was the ONLY and universal meaning - the word - for centuries (until 1888 to be exact). They may give some "STRIPPED" usage too but that doesn't make the literal, historic, universal, UNSTRIPPED meaning that ALL used and most still do as "antiquated."

It's these few modern folk who state that word was "STRIPPED" of its meaning (Mark calls "meaning" "baggage" but what he calls "baggage" IS the meaning). So, I'm using the word WITH its meaning, before this man in 1888 had this "felt need' to STRIP it of meaning.




- Josiah

I don't think you actually know what you're saying.


.

I know what I'm saying, which is why I can post it. I suspect you do, too but simply chose to dodge it. The question I've been rising since this whole discussion began is why?



- Josiah

 

[Rens]

I know what I'm saying, which is why I can post it. I suspect you do, too but simply chose to dodge it. The question I've been rising since this whole discussion began is why?



- Josiah

Because they think it's logical of course. It's about believing and knowing. They don't know that there is no God. You can't know unless you believe which they don't. So they may assume no God unless I get proof. That's the scientific method. There was one who was absolutely sure there was no God. Then a christian said: that's illogical. You're an agnostic, because you can't know. Belief and knowing go hand in hand.
You know, who cares? I don't think it's weird that they want proof. I wanted proof too when I did not believe. I was with my mind convinced it was nonsense, but not so much to not test it. I never asked a christian to prove it to me though. Why? If there was a God I was sure He could prove it to me Himself. But then noone tried to convince me I had to believe and God was real.

 

[MarkFL]

I know what I'm saying...

Well, I posted a paraphrase of your misguided and outdated notion of the true definition of atheism, and you denied having said it, so I quoted the relevant part of your long-winded post to show that you actually did say it. Hence, my observation that you aren't actually clear on what your own view is.

 

[Josiah]

Well, I posted a paraphrase of your misguided and outdated notion of the true definition of atheism, and you denied having said it, so I quoted the relevant part of your long-winded post to show that you actually did say it. Hence, my observation that you aren't actually clear on what your own view is.

No, Mark. I'm not too sure you've read anything I've posted, but yes - occasionally you've stated what you insist is my position when it is obvious it is not. All you'd need to do to share my position is read it and then you could quote it. You have not.

With all due respect, in I think 3 different threads on this same topic, I have asked you many questions - all entirely dodged and ignored. I have tried repeatedly the "break through" our issues, asking you to please consider and respond - all entirely dodged and ignored. I asked over and over and over WHY this new very weird position was invented in 1888 and you dodged and ignored that and refused to respond... until eventually you appeared to agree with Tigger's theory (Tigger of course being a former Atheist himself). Mark, I have never denied your point: in 1888, there was an Atheist who had a "FELT NEED" (that's the claim of Atheists) to "STRIP" (that's the word Atheists use) the word/position of Atheism of it's meaning (you call it "baggage" but it is literally true what you call "baggage" is the entirely of it, and is the literal, historic, universal meaning - and STILL remains to this day). I simply asked WHY? Why this nonsensical, illogical, contradiction of being BOTH Atheist AND concurrently, equally Agnostic? You yourself seemed to suggest: so the Atheist can dodge the "burden of proof" issue by running over to the Agnostic label. I've wondered about the honesty, the intellectual integrity, the "fairness" of that - but you've always completely dodged that, persistently. All I get from you is that in 1888, some guy had a "FELT NEED" to "STRIP" the position of meaning..... so that the burden of proof can be only in one direction. I think a LOT of us find a LOT of irony here, since I've never "met" any group of people more OBSESSED with "PROVE IT!" than Atheists. Another point you've consistently and persistently always dodged and ignored.

Now muddying this up still more, you raised the issue that people should be able to PROVE their propostions (but when any TRY to discuss that with you, you CHANGE the subject to verbs and beliefs.... then CHANGE it back to propositions.... then CHANGE it.... impossible to discusss this with you). I simply noted that ULTIMATELY no one can PROVE anything in the way you suggest - also a point you persistently, consistently dodge and ignore. It's just some get a full "pass" ... and some have to PROVE stuff. I tried, boy did I try, to break through that and come to some resolution with you on that - asking you questions, asking you to consider some points - always ignored, dodged, evaded. Just repeating about how this guy in 1888 had this "FELT NEED" to "STRIP" the pov of meaning.



- Josiah





.

 

[Rens]

 

[MarkFL]

No, Mark...

Do you, or do you not, insist that atheists claim that there is/are no God/gods?

This has been your disagreement with the definition of atheism, where you cling desperately to the baggage added to the word.

You say I am dodging, but until you release this baggage, there is no need for me to consider anything further you have to say on the subject since you are failing at the first step.

 

[Josiah]

No, Mark. I'm not too sure you've read anything I've posted, but yes - occasionally you've stated what you insist is my position when it is obvious it is not. All you'd need to do to share my position is read it and then you could quote it. You have not.

With all due respect, in I think 3 different threads on this same topic, I have asked you many questions - all entirely dodged and ignored. I have tried repeatedly the "break through" our issues, asking you to please consider and respond - all entirely dodged and ignored. I asked over and over and over WHY this new very weird position was invented in 1888 and you dodged and ignored that and refused to respond... until eventually you appeared to agree with Tigger's theory (Tigger of course being a former Atheist himself). Mark, I have never denied your point: in 1888, there was an Atheist who had a "FELT NEED" (that's the claim of Atheists) to "STRIP" (that's the word Atheists use) the word/position of Atheism of it's meaning (you call it "baggage" but it is literally true what you call "baggage" is the entirely of it, and is the literal, historic, universal meaning - and STILL remains to this day). I simply asked WHY? Why this nonsensical, illogical, contradiction of being BOTH Atheist AND concurrently, equally Agnostic? You yourself seemed to suggest: so the Atheist can dodge the "burden of proof" issue by running over to the Agnostic label. I've wondered about the honesty, the intellectual integrity, the "fairness" of that - but you've always completely dodged that, persistently. All I get from you is that in 1888, some guy had a "FELT NEED" to "STRIP" the position of meaning..... so that the burden of proof can be only in one direction. I think a LOT of us find a LOT of irony here, since I've never "met" any group of people more OBSESSED with "PROVE IT!" than Atheists. Another point you've consistently and persistently always dodged and ignored.

Now muddying this up still more, you raised the issue that people should be able to PROVE their propostions (but when any TRY to discuss that with you, you CHANGE the subject to verbs and beliefs.... then CHANGE it back to propositions.... then CHANGE it.... impossible to discusss this with you). I simply noted that ULTIMATELY no one can PROVE anything in the way you suggest - also a point you persistently, consistently dodge and ignore. It's just some get a full "pass" ... and some have to PROVE stuff. I tried, boy did I try, to break through that and come to some resolution with you on that - asking you questions, asking you to consider some points - always ignored, dodged, evaded. Just repeating about how this guy in 1888 had this "FELT NEED" to "STRIP" the pov of meaning.



- Josiah

Do you, or do you not, insist that atheists claim that there is/are no God/gods?

I don't "claim" anything. What I'm saying is that the position is that there is no divine. That's the literal, historic, universal meaning. Sure - I now realize - in 1888, one (otherwise unknown and insignificant) man who said he was an Atheist, had a "FELT NEED" (that's the term used) to "STRIP" the position/word of it's meaning. Oddly, you prefer to call it "baggage" but what you prefer to call "baggage" IS the whole of the position, the meaning, what the proposition is, what the word literally, historically is, how Atheists for centuries used it and as the word itself states - thus you insist on STRIPPING it entirely. Because of some "FELT NEED" (but you won't say what that is). MUST be a reason.... you won't say.

But it seems perhaps that you to agree with Tigger (a former Atheist) as to why this person had this "FELT NEED" to "STRIP" Atheism of its position/meaning - to make the burden of proof apply to Theists but not to A-Theist. In some 3 or 4 threads now, I've been TRYING to engage you in a discussion of this "FELT NEED" and this "STRIPPING" of meaning..... this NEED for the semantic gymnastics? And is this intellectually honest, an indication of integrity, a move to improve understanding or to mislead? I've been TRYING to engage you on why the "burden of proof" doesn't apply to all propositions (but all I get is this grammar thing as you keep changing the discussion from nouns to verbs and back again).

Mark, I've written many posts to you - carefully written - asking you many questions and TRYING (hard!) to break through whatever the issue might be. But Mark, friend, ALL the questions have been dodged, evaded, ignored. ALL attempts at understanding (often with a PLEASE CONSIDER) have been entirely, wholly, completely dodged and ignored. That TOO has caused me to wonder what in the world is going on here? Why would a very intellegent person like yourself be doing that? Why ADMIT this "felt NEED" and this "STRIPPING" of meaning but never say why? Why did you ignore Tigger's theory - in spite of my asking you over and over and over to comment on it.... then eventually seem to confirm it? The more you've persistently dodged and ignored.... the more you keep changing the subject.... the more you keep jumping back and forth between verbs and nouns, between beliefs and propositions - the more you insist on evading all questions to you.... the bigger the question mark gets in my mind. Something is amiss, something you skillfully aren't saying is behind all this. There's SOMETHING behind this "felt NEED" to "STRIP" the word/position of what you've admitted universally and historically and literally was the meaning (including for centuries among Atheists) - and still is the literal, historic and usual meaning - why? And why the jumping back and forth with Agnosticism? Why all the AMAZING semantic gymnastics? It can't be for the purposes of better understanding because its words "STRIPPED" due to some "felt need" and it's pretty nonsensical. I wonder if it's a game, a ploy, a trick, a way for the Atheist to dodge the very issue they typically are SO obsessed about - PROOF? A double standard?

And adding to my confusion is that what you claim this position is - it's just CLASSICAL Agnostism. Nothing you have ever stated here at CH in terms of your own pov is anything but pure Agnosticism. So why do you wish to hold so very, very FIRMLY to the Atheist label and position - MUST be a reason there, but you've been dodging that for weeks now. And I seem to recall you asking ME for PROOF that excludes anything supernatural in order to PROVE the supernatural (a typical Atheist ploy) but you've dodged, ignored and evaded every time I bring that up - that issue of burden of proof. You hinted this new invention since this guy in 1888 created all this is to evade that burden of proof. Why?

Oh well..... It SEEMS to me you either are skillfully evading/dodging or just not reading what is posted to you. But I don't think it's going to change. I've tried as hard as I can, to absolutely no avail whatsoever. You have your reasons, I'm confident.... but I think you desire to keep your "hand" to yourself. And I think I just need to respect that because it's not going to change.

I think I need to chuck this up to one big mystery. That you (for whatever reason) will not discuss. I think since my many, many, many attempts at mutual understanding have completely failed in part because you have chosen to dodge and evade them. I don't know how else to proceed without just repeating things I'm not sure you read before and so aren't likely to read now. Interesting. We're both very good posters... but just failed on this one. I'll never know why. And I think I just need to accept that.




.

 

[MarkFL]

Josiah, I don't understand why it takes you multiple paragraphs to dodge answering a simple question. You would make a great politician...you use a large number of words while at the same time avoid saying much of anything actually relevant to the topic at hand.

I will ask you again:

Do you, or do you not, insist that atheists claim that there is/are no God/gods?

Please, this time, just answer the question.

 

[Josiah]

Josiah, I don't understand why it takes you multiple paragraphs to dodge answering a simple question. You would make a great politician...you use a large number of words while at the same time avoid saying much of anything actually relevant to the topic at hand.

I will ask you again:

Do you, or do you not, insist that atheists claim that there is/are no God/gods?

Please, this time, just answer the question.

Answered over and over and over and over again.

And I think we AGREE - you just insist that IN SPITE of the word, the proposition, the literal and historic and universal meaning (INCLUDING AMONG ATHEISTS for centuries until ONE of them in 1888 had a "felt need" to "STRIP" it) and it's still the literal, historic and I suspect most common meaning. We have your gymnastics about loud and soft, strong and weak, you attempts to say "baggage" when it's obvious you mean the meaning, the pov. We have your constant back-and-forth about propositions vs. beliefs (you seem to switch topics when it serves the dodge). Again, I've asked you many questions - over and over - all dodged, evaded. I've repeatedly TRIED to break through all this, repeatedly asking you to please consider a few brief simple points - always persistently dodged, evaded, ignored. You have your reasons..... I think I just need to accept that you wish to keep them to yourself (because I doubt you haven't thought it through - that would be unliike you).



- Josiah

 

[MarkFL]

Okay, you refuse to answer the question for the sake of clarity, and so it appears you aren't really sure what your position is. When you figure out what you actually think atheism is, get back to us in this thread.

 

[Josiah]

Okay, you refuse to answer the question for the sake of clarity, and so it appears you aren't really sure what your position is. When you figure out what you actually think atheism is, get back to us in this thread.

Mark, I've tried as hard as I know how to do..... For reasons that will remain a mystery to me, you have chosen to ignore, dodge and evade it all. Over and over and over again. The semantic gymnastics, the switching topics, etc. is just something I've not been able to break through since you've evaded and dodged every effort, every question, every attempt. I am unable to know why. And I realize I have no "right" to know why.

Many - virtually countless times - the historic, literal, universal pov that is Atheism (as for centuries Atheists held to and defined in one literal way) has been that meaning, that proposition. Yes, we all know - in 1888, one man had a "FELT NEED" to "STRIP" the proposition (and thus the word) so that, it seems, since 1888 we have all this semantic gymnastics, all this meaninglessness, all this contradiction - all "feed" by a mysterious "felt need" and the ADMISSION that of all being "stripped." I TRIED to understand this..... to learn what this "felt need" of a few Atheists since 1888 is about..... why the need to "STRIP" the word of its meaning..... and you have been persistent, dedicating to dodging all of that. Maybe you simply have chosen to not read what I post to you (your "right")..... maybe you just haven't thought about any of this and are just "copy/pasting" what others do without thinking about it (a possibility I entirely dismissed)..... maybe you WELL KNOW exactly my questions and points (as I suspect) and think it wise to keep your "hand" hidden. I don't know. But I can't continue this without repeating AGAIN (as you seem to want) what I've already said before.... repeat the same points you've entirely, whollly evaded.... repeat the same questions you repeated have ignored and dodged. I think I have no choice but to accept your desire or "felt need" or inability to discuss the issue, address the questions or discuss.

You can call yourself ANYTHING you want - a Chevy Mustang brand of rabbit if you like, lol - I don't question that. And if you have some "felt need" to "strip" every one of those words of their meaning so that you are actually a libertarian, that's okay too. I've NEVER remotely challenged that. I've been TRYING to understand why.... when you are an Agnostic.... why the "FELT NEED"... why the "STRIPPING" of meanings..... why the very confusing, contradictory terms..... I've only been asking WHY - and you have been AMAZINGLY persistent in dodging all that. I'm sure you have your reasons and I'm now 100% sure your felt need is to keep that private to yourself. Okay. Mark - I've run out of effort on this. I'm pretty sure it has something to do with desiring to dodge the issue of proof/substantiation but I'll never know - you've sure made certain of that!

No "hard feelings." I AM dismayed by the attitude you've revealed toward me (SO unlike you) and I hope I've not done likewise. I'm sure you have your reasons for keeping all this private to yourself. I accept and honor that.


Done.



- Josiah




.

 

[MarkFL]

Yes, you keep going on and on and on and over and over and over about how you think the word was stripped. Get past that...the word atheism should now be understood by all to mean what the word actually indicates...without a belief in god/gods. The baggage restricting the definition to a narrow portion of atheism only has been kicked to the curb where it belongs.

However, when I posted that you claim the word means a belief that there are no gods, you objected and disagreed. I would have sworn that you have said this a huge number of times (despite several of us here showing you that you are simply wrong about that), but now you deny having said that. So, it is unclear just where you stand on the definition now and oddly you refuse to answer, posting instead the same invalid irrelevant objections repeatedly.