Myth: Atheism is a Denial of God That Requires Faith

[Josiah]

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..

Your whole point is that the word was STRIPPED. See "The Gutsy Preacher" post 126. I think you already admitted the full, literal, historic, universal meaning and pov - the proposition. The whole point has been taht there was this man in 1888 who had a "felt need" to "strip" it of meaning - but continue using it (even though it seems that man was a classic, traditional Agnostic).

And I note, none of our several Agnostics (and some Atheists) have supported you here. Stravinsk is more than worthy to speak for himself, but in post 94 in "The Gutsy Preacher" for example, he seems to be making much the same point several of us have been TRYING to discuss - to no avail.

But again, don't try to accuse me of suggesting some dude in 1888 had this "felt need" and "stripped" the word/proposition. I think that's YOUR point. It's what many of us TRIED and TRIED to discuss with you. "STRIPPED" is YOUR word, Mark ..... YOUR point...... come on, don't try to reverse tables on us; it won't work.


And many of us TRIED to discuss your confusing of verbs with nouns (beliefs with propositions) and your issue of burden of proof (including Stravinsk in post 29).

But Mark - here's the deal. NOTHING is being accomplished. Obviously, you either won't or chose not to. And I have accepted that. And you DO seem to get angry and sarcastic - and that's never a good sign to continue.

the word atheism should now be understood by all to mean what the word actually indicates...without a belief in god/gods.

You switch back and forth so often I can't keep up with you. I created a whole thread to TRY, oh TRY, to get to your thing dodging back and forth between believes and propositions - this dodging game serves some purpose for you but I've given up..... Mark, I've just given up .... trying to figure out why you (a very intelligent) person feel you need to do that.

No. Atheism is a proposition: No God. Yes, if you want to CHANGE TOPICS and discuss INSTEAD beliefs - I'm game. But then you need to surrender the "burden" issue and you have a difficult FAITH in something that's not (and we usually don't use faith and belief that way). Again, I started a WHOLE THREAD to try, oh to just make a hard TRY, to see if that has SOMETHING to do with this "felt need" of this man in 1888, your insistence on "STRIPPING" a pov, your insistence in twisting propositions until they virtually meaningless at best or the opposite of what is.

And you get incrasingly evasive.... angry..... sarcastic.....

The baggage

What you call "BAGGAGE" is the meaning, the pov, the proposition. I think you admitted that. The proposition was stripped SO radically by that man in 1888 (and you've found 3 or 4 in 1980 or later who do the same thing) that there's NOTHING there at all - no proposition at all. Just some fuzzy BELIEF with no object, a dangeling verb. Meaningless. Useless. Except to confuse, mislead or maybe to serve as a ploy to evade the PROOF these same folks so OBSESS about for others??? Didn't you - some time ago at CH - order me to PROVE that the supernatural exists but can use only the natural to do so? Aren't you the one who stated that "nature is" and yet to date has refused to offer ANYTHING to prove that proposition - ANYTHING that is not assumptive, not in any sense circular, that is objective, that uses nothing natural to prove it? Maybe in a sarcastic manner?


I don't question your integrity or honesty or objectives. But IMO either you have just "bought" (copy/pasted) some stuff from some and haven't given it sufficient thought (a possibility I dismissed out-of-hand) OR you simply haven't read what I've posted (an unlikely possibility - at least in entirety) OR all I'm trying to discuss.... all I'm asking about.... ALL of it is simply something you wish to keep to yourself, a felt need to not show your hand. Maybe there are other possibilities. But I'll never know. You are persist in refusing to discuss it, dodging every question, every point, every attempt - with great effort and skill..... and sadly not infrequently with satire, sarcasism and anger. Not wishing to waste even more time.... wishing to exist before our relationship is destroyed (because I do respect you)..... it's time to exit.

when I posted that you claim the word means a belief that there are no gods, you objected and disagreed

Oh. HOW MANY TIMES? Mark, again - yet again - yet still one more time - Lord have mercy - a proposition is not a belief. One may have a believe IN a proposition that exists, but you keep bouncing back and forth between beliefs and propositions - whichever seems to serve your dodge, back and forth, back and forth - whatever means some have a burden of proof but you don't. Again I started a whole thread on this..... to explore if you just don't know the difference between verbs and nouns, beliefs and propositions, but even then, I doubted that. Your understanding of Epistemology is sound. There's either an absurd ploy here (related to wanting to hold OTHERS to a burden of proof but EXEMPT yourself) or there is just a game being played to confuse.... or (most likely) you want to hold all this to yourself.



- Josiah

 

[MarkFL]

I have remained steadfast in my statements that atheism means "without belief in god/gods" exactly as the word indicates. Now, you can claim otherwise, but anyone who can read can plainly see that.

I'm not angry, far from it, it matters too little to me to get angry, as I see it matter very little to the community as a whole. I am merely not going to be buffaloed by overly verbose posts that say very little...I've been doing this since before you were born and I know pretty much all the dishonest tactics and logical fallacies used by theists, and you haven't put one of those forth that I haven't seen way too many times before.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I have remained steadfast in my statements that atheism means "without belief in god/gods" exactly as the word indicates. Now, you can claim otherwise, but anyone who can read can plainly see that.

I'm not angry, far from it, it matters too little to me to get angry, as I see it matter very little to the community as a whole. I am merely not going to be buffaloed by overly verbose posts that say very little...I've been doing this since before you were born and I know pretty much all the dishonest tactics and logical fallacies used by theists, and you haven't put one of those forth that I haven't seen way too many times before.

You are right that atheism means by its ancient Greek derivation a(without)theos(god) thus an atheist is without god or gods, goddess or goddesses, he/she is without religious faith in any of these supernatural beings. No long posts are needed to explain it. It is not hard to understand.

 

[Rens]

You are right that atheism means by its ancient Greek derivation a(without)theos(god) thus an atheist is without god or gods, goddess or goddesses, he/she is without religious faith in any of these supernatural beings. No long posts are needed to explain it. It is not hard to understand.

No it's really quite simple actually. But they do have a belief in nothing and they have to prove that LOL. Prove nothing!
Oh wait, that's why they don't have to prove.

 

[Josiah]

You are right that atheism means by its ancient Greek derivation a(without)theos(god) thus an atheist is without god or gods, goddess or goddesses

Okay. Agreed. The literal, historic, universal meaning - affirmed for CENTURIES, including by Atheists. A proposition: No God, no divine.

he/she is without religious faith in any of these supernatural beings.

When you make up your mind, let us know.


Is the proposition of Atheism: A - Theos, "No God" or, rather, in stead of that, is it not a proposition or statement or pov AT ALL but rather a verb, a belief that one has no faith in (blank)? When you make up your mind if Theism and Atheism are propositions, pov, nouns that have a "burden of proof" OR if they are dangling verbs of beliefs (that have no burden of proof).... when you decide which part of your sentence is the truth - let us know. Just make up your mind.

And a person without a view on whether God is or is not is called Agnosticism. If one is an Agnostic, then it seems logical and consistent and an asset to understandingto note they are an Agnostic since that's what they are - not a Theist/Atheist/Nothing/Sorta something "STRIPPED" of it meaning because of some mysterious "felt need" to do so (never disclosed why the "felt need"). Again if one has no position - pro or con - that's not Theism or Atheism, it's Agnosticism. Why would one insist on being associated with the proposition of ATHEISM when they are a classic Agnostic? Must be some reason..... Some reason for the "felt need" to "strip" Atheism of it's meaning..... to change topics to belief rather than propositions (but only for Atheists).... We just will not be told why: only that it has something to do with a person being able to exempt self from the "burden of proof" demanded of everyone else, it seems.



MoreCoffee, as a Catholic, watch this: Listen. Pay attention to the Catholic apologist, whom you disagree with ENTIRELY: www.catholic.com/video/atheism-the-burden-of-proof-and-the-problem-of-evil

Note that in terms of propositions, there are ONLY 3 possible positions: God is, God is not, No position. LISTEN to the Catholic apologist - he knows epistemology. I just think you - as a Catholic - might want to know what the Catholic position is here, and perhaps from an epistemologist what we're discussing here. Not the Catholic philosopher/apologist here is not Lutheran, he's a CATHOLIC - so don't knee-jerk jump that he must be wrong just because he says what I have on the fundamental epistemological question. Of course, these two Catholic apologists got nowhere.... but then they didn't have Catholics rejecting everything, either.


MoreCoffee, no doubt our esteemed friend is running with this man in 1888 who had this "FELT NEED" to "STRIP" the proposition of Atheism. We don't know why he did.... and Mark won't tell us why a few follow his lead here (and after ALL my many attempts, I've had to give up - obviously, if he knows he ain't saying) but that's all I've tried to explore: WHY the "felt need" to STRIP the proposition... especially when their position (like the atheist in that video) is actually Agnosticism? Why the need to STRIP the view (but not any other proposition - including the antithesis: Theism)? Why the need for all the gymnatics, all the semantics, all the weak - strong, loud - soft, entirely stripped - partly stripped - not stripped? WHY? Is there some reason? It seems to have something to do with the Atheists OBSESSION with Theists having to PROVE their proposition while the Atheist can totally dodge it. A ploy. If so, is that honest? Fair? Mark wont' discuss. I've given up. But I HOPE you'll come to realize how you have been arguing against Catholicism on the epistemological point.


- Josiah



.



.

 

[Josiah]

I have remained steadfast in my statements that atheism means "without belief in god/gods" exactly as the word indicates. Now, you can claim otherwise, but anyone who can read can plainly see that.

I'm not angry, far from it, it matters too little to me to get angry, as I see it matter very little to the community as a whole. I am merely not going to be buffaloed by overly verbose posts that say very little...I've been doing this since before you were born and I know pretty much all the dishonest tactics and logical fallacies used by theists, and you haven't put one of those forth that I haven't seen way too many times before.

I haven't see you note any logical fallacies - but I consider it at least a possible logical fallacy to insist one has a position but does not, that one proposition has some extreme burden of proof but the antithesis has none, that one can switch back and forth between believe and propositions (whichever serves the purpose of demanding proof but evading the issue entirely for self), of "STRIPPING" propositions of meaning. Perhaps just confusing and promoting misunderstanding, possibly illogical and nonsensical, or possibly just a ploy (and if so, a ploy for WHAT?)


I don't know what "logical fallacy" you claim I made as a Theist.... I don't recall you accusing me of any "logical fallacy." I just seem to remember you insisting that I (since I identified myself as a Lutheran) must PROVE that the supernatural exists by using nothing supernatural because only the natural exists (a proposition you have refused to prove without using anything natural, without doing what you accused Theists of doing).


IMO, if what I said is easy to address, then you would have done so, Mark. Obviously. Instead of several days now of dodging and evading and ignoring virtually everything I posted to you, including every question I've asked, every section where I asked you to please consider some things, pretty much everything presented to you. And not just what I've posted to you. You've never even answered why this guy in 1888 had the"felt need" that created all this? Why he had to "strip" the position of what you seem to agree was the position (and still is - albeit STRIPPED by some)? If what I said is so easy for you to answer (you've been doing it since before I was born), then why have you been so very persistent in ignoring, dodging, evading all it? It's a mystery to me, Mark. But obviously, IF you have any reply to all my questions, etc. - you obviously won't share them. I'll likely never know why.


Oh well. You likely have your reasons. I'm willing to accept that you desire or need to keep this to yourself. Perhaps you think me too young.



- Josiah

 

[Rens]

nm, I'll have a break and a Kitkat

 

[Josiah]

nm, I'll have a break and a Kitkat

Me, too LOL

MoreCoffee is just arguing with the Catholic Church on this..... Mark for whatever reasons seems to be insisting on keeping everything I raise to himself..... Mark seems to be standing alone among the Atheists and Agnostics here..... after 3 or 4 threads and way too many posts, obviously nothing has happened. I've come to accept that reality.

I appreciate those who have read these posts. It's rather technical and the posts can be long, so I'm very honored when people care about these things and respect me enough to read through it (whether they agree or disagree); I'm honored by that.



- Josiah

 

[Rens]

Me, too LOL

MoreCoffee is just arguing with the Catholic Church on this..... Mark for whatever reasons seems to be insisting on keeping everything I raise to himself..... Mark seems to be standing alone among the Atheists and Agnostics here..... after 3 or 4 threads and way too many posts, obviously nothing has happened. I've come to accept that reality.

I appreciate those who have read these posts. It's rather technical and the posts can be long, so I'm very honored when people care about these things and respect me enough to read through it (whether they agree or disagree); I'm honored by that.



- Josiah

Well, I tried to read a discussion on reddit about it, I thought: hey that will make things clearer. My goodness gracious me. I quit after a few posts and tbh had absolutely no idea what they were talking about anymore. I thought defenitions were to understand each other better and make it easier lol not. Seems academics and people on internet use different meanings. Well it costed me enough effort to read your posts, now I've had enough of it all. It was funny. One atheist asked: how do christians read Acts? It had not really happened said so and so. He tries to prove that it's just stories and all these people never existed. I said: well I read it like it is and the Holy Spirit confirms the Word so I know it is true, but that's a bit hard to explain to someone who tries to understand it all with his mind. Even if you gave me tons of proof that it is not true, it won't matter. If archeologists found nothing I don't care. God said it, I believe it, that settles it. But although he thinks very strongly that it did not happen it is not faith. If they dig up evidence he will change his mind and I won't, that's the difference. I sure hope they dig it all up. It was sad to read. One Jewish guy who used to believe now calls himself agnostic, because archeologists said it never happened, Abraham, Moses and everything.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I am not aware of the Catholic Church having some formal definition of atheism. My posts have been based on what the word means and what atheists today say of their position. Nothing more.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The Catholic Church teaches thus on atheism and agnosticism.

Atheism

2123 "Many . . . of our contemporaries either do not at all perceive, or explicitly reject, this intimate and vital bond of man to God. Atheism must therefore be regarded as one of the most serious problems of our time."[SUP]58[/SUP]

2124 The name "atheism" covers many very different phenomena. One common form is the practical materialism which restricts its needs and aspirations to space and time. Atheistic humanism falsely considers man to be "an end to himself, and the sole maker, with supreme control, of his own history."[SUP]59 [/SUP]Another form of contemporary atheism looks for the liberation of man through economic and social liberation. "It holds that religion, of its very nature, thwarts such emancipation by raising man's hopes in a future life, thus both deceiving him and discouraging him from working for a better form of life on earth."[SUP]60[/SUP]

2125 Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion.[SUP]61 [/SUP]The imputability of this offense can be significantly diminished in virtue of the intentions and the circumstances. "Believers can have more than a little to do with the rise of atheism. To the extent that they are careless about their instruction in the faith, or present its teaching falsely, or even fail in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than to reveal the true nature of God and of religion."[SUP]62[/SUP]

2126 Atheism is often based on a false conception of human autonomy, exaggerated to the point of refusing any dependence on God.[SUP]63 [/SUP]Yet, "to acknowledge God is in no way to oppose the dignity of man, since such dignity is grounded and brought to perfection in God...."[SUP]64 [/SUP]"For the Church knows full well that her message is in harmony with the most secret desires of the human heart."[SUP]65[/SUP]

Agnosticism

2127 Agnosticism assumes a number of forms. In certain cases the agnostic refrains from denying God; instead he postulates the existence of a transcendent being which is incapable of revealing itself, and about which nothing can be said. In other cases, the agnostic makes no judgment about God's existence, declaring it impossible to prove, or even to affirm or deny.

2128 Agnosticism can sometimes include a certain search for God, but it can equally express indifferentism, a flight from the ultimate question of existence, and a sluggish moral conscience. Agnosticism is all too often equivalent to practical atheism.

58 GS 19 # 1.
59 GS 20 # 2.
60 GS 20 # 2.
61 Cf. ⇒ Rom 1:18.
62 GS 19 # 3.
63 Cf. GS 20 # 1.
64 GS 21 # 3.
65 GS 21 # 7.
​

 

[Josiah]

You are right that atheism means by its ancient Greek derivation a(without)theos(god) thus an atheist is without god or gods, goddess or goddesses

Okay. Agreed. The literal, historic, universal meaning - affirmed for CENTURIES, including by Atheists. A proposition: No God, no divine.

.

he/she is without religious faith in any of these supernatural beings.

When you make up your mind, let us know.


.

Is the proposition of Atheism: A - Theos, "No God" or, rather, in stead of that, is it not a proposition or statement or pov AT ALL but rather a verb, a belief that one has no faith in (blank)? When you make up your mind if Theism and Atheism are propositions, pov, nouns that have a "burden of proof" OR if they are dangling verbs of beliefs (that have no burden of proof).... when you decide which part of your sentence is the truth - let us know. Just make up your mind.

And a person without a view on whether God is or is not is called Agnosticism. If one is an Agnostic, then it seems logical and consistent and an asset to understandingto note they are an Agnostic since that's what they are - not a Theist/Atheist/Nothing/Sorta something "STRIPPED" of it meaning because of some mysterious "felt need" to do so (never disclosed why the "felt need"). Again if one has no position - pro or con - that's not Theism or Atheism, it's Agnosticism. Why would one insist on being associated with the proposition of ATHEISM when they are a classic Agnostic? Must be some reason..... Some reason for the "felt need" to "strip" Atheism of it's meaning..... to change topics to belief rather than propositions (but only for Atheists).... We just will not be told why: only that it has something to do with a person being able to exempt self from the "burden of proof" demanded of everyone else, it seems.



MoreCoffee,

As a Catholic, watch this: Listen. Pay attention to the Catholic apologist, whom you disagree with ENTIRELY: http://www.catholic.com/video/atheis...roblem-of-evil

Note that in terms of propositions, there are ONLY 3 possible positions: God is, God is not, No position. LISTEN to the Catholic apologist - he knows epistemology. I just think you - as a Catholic - might want to know what the Catholic position is here, and perhaps from an epistemologist what we're discussing here. Not the Catholic philosopher/apologist here is not Lutheran, he's a CATHOLIC - so don't knee-jerk jump that he must be wrong just because he says what I have on the fundamental epistemological question. Of course, these two Catholic apologists got nowhere.... but then they didn't have Catholics rejecting everything, either.


MoreCoffee, no doubt our esteemed friend is running with this man in 1888 who had this "FELT NEED" to "STRIP" the proposition of Atheism. We don't know why he did.... and Mark won't tell us why a few follow his lead here (and after ALL my many attempts, I've had to give up - obviously, if he knows he ain't saying) but that's all I've tried to explore: WHY the "felt need" to STRIP the proposition... especially when their position (like the atheist in that video) is actually Agnosticism? Why the need to STRIP the view (but not any other proposition - including the antithesis: Theism)? Why the need for all the gymnatics, all the semantics, all the weak - strong, loud - soft, entirely stripped - partly stripped - not stripped? WHY? Is there some reason? It seems to have something to do with the Atheists OBSESSION with Theists having to PROVE their proposition while the Atheist can totally dodge it. A ploy. If so, is that honest? Fair? Mark wont' discuss. I've given up. But I HOPE you'll come to realize how you have been arguing against Catholicism on the epistemological point.


- Josiah


.

The Catholic Church teaches thus on atheism and agnosticism.

Atheism

2123 "Many . . . of our contemporaries either do not at all perceive, or explicitly reject, this intimate and vital bond of man to God. Atheism must therefore be regarded as one of the most serious problems of our time."[SUP]58[/SUP]

2124 The name "atheism" covers many very different phenomena. One common form is the practical materialism which restricts its needs and aspirations to space and time. Atheistic humanism falsely considers man to be "an end to himself, and the sole maker, with supreme control, of his own history."[SUP]59 [/SUP]Another form of contemporary atheism looks for the liberation of man through economic and social liberation. "It holds that religion, of its very nature, thwarts such emancipation by raising man's hopes in a future life, thus both deceiving him and discouraging him from working for a better form of life on earth."[SUP]60[/SUP]

2125 Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion.[SUP]61 [/SUP]The imputability of this offense can be significantly diminished in virtue of the intentions and the circumstances. "Believers can have more than a little to do with the rise of atheism. To the extent that they are careless about their instruction in the faith, or present its teaching falsely, or even fail in their religious, moral, or social life, they must be said to conceal rather than to reveal the true nature of God and of religion."[SUP]62[/SUP]

2126 Atheism is often based on a false conception of human autonomy, exaggerated to the point of refusing any dependence on God.[SUP]63 [/SUP]Yet, "to acknowledge God is in no way to oppose the dignity of man, since such dignity is grounded and brought to perfection in God...."[SUP]64 [/SUP]"For the Church knows full well that her message is in harmony with the most secret desires of the human heart."[SUP]65[/SUP]

Agnosticism

2127 Agnosticism assumes a number of forms. In certain cases the agnostic refrains from denying God; instead he postulates the existence of a transcendent being which is incapable of revealing itself, and about which nothing can be said. In other cases, the agnostic makes no judgment about God's existence, declaring it impossible to prove, or even to affirm or deny.

2128 Agnosticism can sometimes include a certain search for God, but it can equally express indifferentism, a flight from the ultimate question of existence, and a sluggish moral conscience. Agnosticism is all too often equivalent to practical atheism.

58 GS 19 # 1.
59 GS 20 # 2.
60 GS 20 # 2.
61 Cf. ⇒ Rom 1:18.
62 GS 19 # 3.
63 Cf. GS 20 # 1.
64 GS 21 # 3.
65 GS 21 # 7.
​

Thank you. It seems you chose to not view the video or read my post. And that's okay. But I'm glad you thought to check out what your denomination says on this nonetheless. I wish you had done that when we started. Oh well.



- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

2125 Since it rejects or denies the existence of God ...

that is two possibilities

• rejects - does not accept the existence of God
• denies - denies the existence of God

the former is what Mark has been telling us for a long time.
the latter is not Mark's position.

 

[Josiah]

2125 Since it rejects or denies the existence of God ...

that is two possibilities

• rejects - does not accept the existence of God
• denies - denies the existence of God

the former is what Mark has been telling us for a long time.
the latter is not Mark's position.

You horribly misquote your own denomination's Catechism, you need to read # 2125.

Rejects the existence of God and denies the existence of God are epistemologically the same thing, both are what your denomination specially states. To reject that God exists and to deny that God exists are functionally the same. And neither is to take no position on the issue. Re-read your denominations' Catechism. Check out that Catholic Answers video. For your own edification, as a Catholic. I think you'll find the RCC does not affirm Atheism and does not recognize this newly created position of that man in 1888 of Atheism/Agnosticism. But I honestly don't care if you agree with your denomination on this point or not, I just thought maybe you did. My assumption is likely wrong on that point. I think it was Churchill who coined, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and I've met some at websites like this that passionately embrace that.



- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

I will not waste more time on this Josiah. Your posts avoid the topic and present your claims again and again despite abundant contradictory proofs.

 

[Rens]

https://youtu.be/fejBO1HZXVQ

 

[MarkFL]

I will not waste more time on this Josiah. Your posts avoid the topic and present your claims again and again despite abundant contradictory proofs.

Yes, I am finally done wasting time on this as well. My goal was to ensure people are given accurate information about what atheism is. We have accomplished that goal.

 

[Lamb]

I haven't read the last page or two...are there any new developments?

 

[Rens]

I haven't read the last page or two...are there any new developments?

What? You didn't read it?

A consensus on the meaning of the word atheist wasn't reached, neither on if and if so why it got ripped of its original meaning and what its original meaning was and now everyone is eating Kit Kat.

 

[Josiah]

I haven't read the last page or two...are there any new developments?

No. Mark is steadfast in evading, avoiding, dodging every single question asked of him, every point he is politely asked to consider and respond to. I only learned he's quite focused on my age.

I gave up because OBVIOUSLY he's never going to read or respond or consider anything I post or ask on this. It just isn't going to happen, no matter what. And I'm left to wonder why the persistent felt need to dodge all that. And he left because he's not going to discuss ANYTHING I post, address ANYTHING I ask, respond to ANYTHING I ask him to consider. He has only one thing he's willing to say - and he did that in the op, it never was presented as a topic for discussion or consideration.

I think we remain friends - CERTAINLY and fully from my end (important to me ALSO because he's now a mod, LOL) - and I rejoice in that. There's just SOME mysterious reason why he's chosen to evade everything I ask or post - and I've accepted that reality and that I don't need to know why he's chosen that. It's okay.

Life goes on. :smile:



- Josiah




.