A Gutsy Preacher

[MarkFL]

Double post, and server so unresponsive I can't delete it.

 

[Josiah]

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 ?????????


CONSIDER - 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....




.

You insist on making atheism in general to coincide only with strong atheism.

I think your "defense" is word games and admitted doublespeak. And we are still left with WHY this new ploy?


I invite you to consider my post to you, particularly the last section.




.

 

[MarkFL]

I think your "defense" is word games and admitted doublespeak. And we are still left with WHY this new ploy?

You sir, are the one with the ploys...

• The refusal to read my posts with any modicum of comprehension demonstrated in your replies to said posts.
• The steadfast refusal to accept that you are simply wrong about how atheism is defined in modern parlance.
• Purposely mangling the clear analogy I used to illustrate my position.
• Accusations of "word games" and "admitted doublespeak" when there have been no such things from me.

All we are now left with is why you refuse to accept that you are simply wrong about the definition of atheism, and why you cannot bring yourself to admit it. I find it very strange and confounding.

 

[Josiah]

I think your claim of concurrent Atheism AND concurrent Agnosticism is nonsense - and is intellectually dishonest, illogical, contradictory, and purposely confusing. Yes - you've made it clear - it seems recently a few have stripped the word "Atheist" of any significant meaning (which you say is now STRONG Atheism), how having "hard" and "soft" ways of insisting that there is "NO GOD" ... yes doesn't always mean yes or no always no. We must wonder WHY this ploy? Do the same hold that Theism doesn't necessarily affirm that God is or is not?

But you evade the contradiction. No matter HOW you chose to say "NO GOD" - you logically cannot also, equally, concurrently say "I have no position of whether the divine exists or not." An Agnostic is one who takes no stance, who does not deny or affirm either position, the verdict, if you will, is out. Friend, it doesn't matter how hard or soft you say "NO GOD" it's still contradictory to "I have no position on the reality of the divinity but hold both views are possible."

Now, IF you want to say, "I reject as insufficient the apologies I've heard for the reality of the divine" - friend, that's not Atheism by any definition; it is not a proclaimation or position at all - simply that you reject certain arguments. If I said, "I heard that we should not vote for Trump because he's dead - but I found that argument to be false" that's unrelated to arguing that Trump doesn't exist. This seems SO obvious to me that I'm troubled why I never need to post it, If you want to say, "I find the pro-divine arguments unconvincing" then why don't you SAY that? Wouldn't that be intellectually honest? Yes, of course, you could say that and ALSO describe yourself as Agnostic - I don't challenged that. But that's not be atheism, that's ad petitionem respuere. Again, this seems SO obvious I'm shocked I need to post it.

Again.... I refer you to Tigger's post. There MUST be a reason for this new ploy, these "loud" and "soft" contradictions of the word. A reason for persistently refusing to address anything I've posted.... why the NEED to claim BOTH Atheism AND Agnosticism?



- Josiah



.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I think Mark's made a whole lot more sense than you in the conversation, josiah

 

[MarkFL]

Atheism means what the word intends by its very construction:

a - without

theism - the belief in the existence of god/gods

There are two ways one can go about rejecting theism (being without theism, or atheist), either by dismissing it on lack of credible/compelling evidence as I do, or by making a claim yourself that there is/are no god/gods. As atheism grows and atheists are now more free to "come out" with less fear of social suicide, the word has been gradually stripped of the excess baggage dishonestly imposed on it by some theists.

 

[Josiah]

I think Mark's made a whole lot more sense than you in the conversation, josiah

I am 100% sure of that.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Mark knows what he does not believe as far as religions go and he says he is an atheist. All this to and fro about what you think "atheist" means, Josiah, doesn't change the fact that Mark says he does not believe in God and that he is an atheist. Telling him that he got his definitions all wrong and that he ought to conform with yours is not going to convince Mark that you "have the truth" that he "needs to hear". It looks like a huge waste of time. Reasoning with Mark as an intelligent man with significance and integrity will serve everybody better than what's been going on so far.

 

[Josiah]

Atheism means what the word intends by its very construction:

a - without

theism - the belief in the existence of god/gods

There are two ways one can go about rejecting theism (being without theism, or atheist), either by dismissing it on lack of credible/compelling evidence as I do, or by making a claim yourself that there is/are no god/gods. As atheism grows and atheists are now more free to "come out" with less fear of social suicide, the word has been gradually stripped of the excess baggage dishonestly imposed on it by some theists.

A = no, not
Theos = God, divine
Atheism = God is not.

It's not a belief (that would be credoism or acredoism), it's a proclaimation, a position, a stance. It's not a body of evidence that you reject or accept, it's a position.


If you wanted to say that you reject the arguments you've heard - that's not Atheism, in Latin that's called ad petitionem respuere.
If you wanted to say that you don't BELIEVE in God (leaving the issue alone as to whether God exists or not) - that would be acredoism.

the word has been gradually stripped of the excess baggage

See, IMO it's obvious - it's not "stripping it" of meanings it has...... it's a case of entirely "stripping it" of the meaning it DOES have. Yet still USING it. Gotta wonder why...... And if that's a generous portion of intellectual honesty and a desire to be communicate effectively.... or if there is some ploy here (see Tigger's post above), especially when linked to Agnosticism as you so persistently, stubbornly do.


I didn't know some NEEDED to strip the word of its meaning - but still insist on using THE SAME WORD. I didn't know they need to run from the word but insist on using THE SAME WORD. But at least you now indicate - it's a case of trying to change the meaning of the word. It has nothing to do wth being "hard" or "soft," nothing to do with your earlier comment about "some thing, some that" it's about NEEDING to strip a word of its meaning while using THE SAME WORD. I spoke of being purposely misleading and unclear, of intellectual dishonesty, of not meaning what is stated - you always evaded that. But of course, you need to ALSO strip the word "Agnostic" of its meaning too in order to be both.


So, it would be honest to insist that "Theist" has nothing to do with whether God exists or not, whether God is or is not? It only means I don't know if God exists - I'm not sufficiently convinced? Only a HARD Theist means the word to mean an affirmation of God?

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 ?????????


CONSIDER - 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




.

 

[Josiah]

Mark knows what he does not believe as far as religions go and he says he is an atheist. All this to and fro about what you think "atheist" means, Josiah, doesn't change the fact that Mark says he does not believe in God and that he is an atheist. Telling him that he got his definitions all wrong and that he ought to conform with yours is not going to convince Mark that you "have the truth" that he "needs to hear". It looks like a huge waste of time. Reasoning with Mark as an intelligent man with significance and integrity will serve everybody better than what's been going on so far.

pay attention, MoreCoffee...


No one is discussing what Mark or anyone believes or not. We're discussing POSITIONS.

You claim Mark says he doesn't accept the reality of God and this is what an Atheist is. You claim that's his position and the reality he holds to. Obviously, MoreCoffee, you have NOT read one word of any of his posts in this thread. You don't agree with him. You are agreeing with ME (while obviously grabbing any opportunity to be anti-Protestant). And yes, as I posted, I was 100% confident of that. MoreCoffee, if you had read any of the post here, you'd know that I'M the one indicating that the position of NO GOD is that there is no God. And that labeling one as affirming that position does at least suggest he/she holds that God is not. Pay attention, MoreCoffee. And you haven't read ANY of this discussion about his claim to concurrently be an Agnostic. You haven't read any of his posts about that.... obviously it's IMPOSSIBLE that you've read ANY of my posts to him or you could not have just left that all out.

And obviously, you missed that I've NEVER question Mark's integrity (although I have wondered why some are SO determined to STRIP the term "atheist" of all relevant meaning - indeed, of any meaning - while insisting on USING it in full knowledge most don't know - as Mark pointed out - it's at times STRIPPED of its meaning). Seems the same is true for Agnostic.... And MoreCoffee, the discussion is this "Both Atheist - Agnostic" position. Both. Pay attention. I was (and am) 100% confident you didn't know that.... but that you'd cease any opportunity to "side" against a Protestant (the enemy of my enemy is my friend). I think Mark does read .. does understand.... I think he's just evading. It seems mutual.


For the record, I like Mark. I requested and received friendship from him. He is the first atheist I've ever "met" (in person or on the 'net) who doesn't seem filled with hatred toward God and Theists, and shows great respect and courtesy to all, and has revealed to me - over and over - great intelligence, articulation and knowledge. That's exactly WHY this point of being BOTH an Agnostic and Atheist puzzles me. Now, if neither word means anything - those who like to use them have "stripped them" of their meanings - then perhaps all we have is purposefully misleading, dishonest communication (and we must ask WHY, for what PURPOSE) but I suspect it's far more than that. Too bad you evidently did not read Tigger's post above and the discussion about it.



- Josiah




.

 

[MarkFL]

Theism makes a claim that you either accept or reject. If you accept it, you are a theist. If you reject it, you are an atheist. It's really that simple.

 

[MoreCoffee]

...
You claimMark says he doesn't believe God and this is what an Atheist is.
...

You got it wrong Josiah. I wrote Mark says he does not believe in God and that he is an atheist. I did not write what you claim I said. That's one of the problems with your posts. They keep missing what your interlocutor writes and substituting something from inside your head. No wonder no progress can be made.

 

[Rens]

Mark said that and I believe he's correct. Atheist doesn't mean God is not.
From Mark (too lazy to quote):
a - without

theism - the belief in the existence of god/gods

If both parties use the same meaning of words the discussion is easier.

Ah, it has different meanings:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

 

[Josiah]

Atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Atheism is contrasted with theism (the antithesis of it) which is the belief that at least one deity exists.


Atheism:
A = not, no.
Theism = God.
Atheism = is no God.


Theism:
Theos = God
Theism = God is.


Yes, a Theist likely believes in God.... an Atheist not..... these are likely consequences of the two positions (although as I posted out above, earlier - not necessarily, either way).

I don't agree that "Theism" is a position of complete neutrality about the issue of the reality of the divine, conversely, "Atheism" is not a position of complete neutrality about the issue of the reality of the divine.


Sure, one can "STRIP" (as Mark put it) words of their meaning.... up can be stripped of its meaning and instead redefined to mean down.... but I wonder about the intellectual honesty of that, the intentional clarity of that, the constructiveness of that in communication. I wonder WHY that would be done, the intent. See Tigger's post above.


But the issue is NOT whether one may be an Atheist (holding that God is not), the issue is this concurrent insistence on being an Agnostic (no position on the question). I gave many options above for how re-definitions (stripping them of their meanings), how misuses of them MIGHT be meant - but all of those have been rejected as not what is meant.


Perhaps the "root" of the problem is the insistence that SOME recently have had a felt need to "STRIP" all these words of their meanings - yet still use them. Maybe it would be more honest, more helpful to say what is the case? Maybe Theist means nothing too - they've stripped that of meaning - an Atheist can call me a Theist because I affirm the existence of God (and ergo believe such) but if Atheist can mean God exists then certaintly Theist equally means God does not. Not sure how intellectually honest, how helpful that is.

 

[MarkFL]

pay attention, MoreCoffee...but that you'd cease any opportunity to "side" against a Protestant...

I think that is a very unfair implication. MC gets more vitriol here than anyone else, myself included, for the simple fact that he is a Catholic. I have yet to see him return the favor to anyone simply based on their denomination. Instead he weathers all the prejudices in a gentile manner.

I resent the implication that he is siding with me solely to disagree with a Protestant...MC has far more integrity than that...he is siding with me because he sees that what I have said, regarding what atheism is, is true, and that I have made my points with a reasonable degree of lucidity.

 

[Rens]

Lol

In his book Letter to a Christian Nation, Sam Harris wrote:

In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist". We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive

 

[MoreCoffee]

Lol

In his book Letter to a Christian Nation, Sam Harris wrote:

In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist". We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive

We could invent one for elvis ... elvisisdeadism

 

[MarkFL]

Lol

In his book Letter to a Christian Nation, Sam Harris wrote:

In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist". We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive

I would agree wholeheartedly with that. Unfortunately, at least here in the U.S., it is a label those of us who do not accept theism must wear. I generally try to let people get to know me first, to see that I am not a baby-eating amoral monster, before springing this fact about myself on them. This way it will be more of a struggle for them to shun me and other atheists based solely on our rejection of theism. Here in the rural south, one has to be very careful about this.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I imagine that in the rural south of the USA being a Catholic might be difficult too.

 

[MarkFL]

I imagine that in the rural south of the USA being a Catholic might be difficult too.

A Catholic and an atheist walked into a bar in rural NE Florida...yeah, we might have some fancy footwork to do.