Defining Atheism: “No belief in God” or “Belief in no God?”
“Atheist” is a translation of the Greek: atheos using the alpha privative “a” and the term for God “theos.” It does not merge the alpha private with the ENGLISH TERM “theist.” Rather “atheist” as a whole word is a translation of “atheos,” the whole word. Were the original meaning drawn entirely from etymology it would mean simply “godless,” “ungodly,” or “without God.” And this indeed is one of the definitions we find for the term in its Ancient sources. In that time, it also had the definition of “denying God/gods” which followed by implication from the notion of “godless;” if a person truly believed in a grand judge over all the universe he would not live/teach/think as if no such being existed. However the idea of withholding/refraining belief about some God, though present in ancient Greece and Rome, tended to be subsumed under terms like “skepticism” (gk: skepticos) or “materialism” or “atomism” (a form of materialism). “Atheos” however was used to describe a different phenomenon. Thus the effective meaning of “atheos” is something like, “godless” or “disbelief in God.”Were someone to translate ancient and classical uses of “atheos” into “no belief in God” they would do an injustice to the text since that is simply not how Greeks and Romans were using the term when they first coined it, nor when they continued using it over the years. Etymology (study of word origins, and composite meaning from word parts) is only one way that words take on meaning.When we apply etymology to the English word “atheism,” we have “athe” (from atheos “no God/Godless”) + “-ism” (belief). Belief then characterizes the “no God” hence we have, “Belief in no God.” And the alpha privative, as always, characterizes the word to which its affixed. So the belief is positive, the object of belief in negative. It is “belief in no God” or “belief in Godless[ness].” For etymology to achieve the negative definition of atheism, a popular definition today, from the term would have to be something like, “theos-a-ism” or, “No belief [in a] God.” The etymology argument then is not a friend but a foe of the negative definition of atheism.In ancient Rome we find the positive form of atheism exercised when Christians were being persecuted and martyred for being “atheists.” They did not simply lack belief in the Roman Gods, rather they consciously rejected all God’s but one. Compared to the plethora of Gods in the Roman Pantheon, rejecting all but one is practically equivalent to atheism. Hence Christians were accused of atheism. Even ambivalence could have been tolerated among the Romans as they did with many agnostic philosophers (though the term “agnostic” had not be invented yet). But conscious rejection of the Roman Gods was seen as an intolerable affront to the State.As we can expect from ideas that are deeply rooted in human nature and the human psyche, the idea of “atheism” survived for centuries with both connotations intact: “godless” and “disbelief in God.” However in recent times the definition has come under question by atheist themselves. Three motivating factors can be identified. First, in debates it is generally the better strategy to rebut the opponent’s case rather than to have to defend one’s one case. A softened definition of atheism allows for this. With negative atheism, the atheist doesn’t carry any burden of proof since that burden is on the participant/s making a positive case of some sort: “God exists” or “God does not exists.” But to claim, “I have no belief about God” is not a positive case, and therefore requires no defense in contemporary debate formats. Second, Antony Flew’s important article “The Presumption of Atheism” argues that the default or neutral position for humanity is atheism. Building on the point just made, Flew argues that the burden of proof is on the theism to demonstrate that “belief in God” is reasonable. Essentially, Flew is arguing that negative/soft/weak atheism is man’s natural disposition, or if it is not, it is the intellectually justified default position. It is up to the theist to make a positive case for theism. A third factor which might have played a part in this redefinition is the onset of British positivism, like that of A.J. Ayer. Ayer, among others, suggested that claims must be empirically verifiable or analytically (by-definition) true if they are to be linguistically meaningful. Theology, for Ayer, is not true, but nor is it even false. It is without meaning since its reference to God lacks analytic veracity and empirical testibility the notion cannot even be entertained as a proposition. It is like trying to argue “I believe in ‘ouch’” or “I don’t believe in ‘um’.” These terms “ouch” and “um” are emotive/gibberish terms that defy cognitive belief or disbelief. “Truth” and “falsity” do not apply to them, and, according to Ayer, nor does it apply to any God-talk. Ayer’s positivism was all the rage for a while, but today, few people are conscious advocates of this “logical positivism,” even though its scope and influence is incredibly widespread.Understanding these three possible influences together: 1) The strategic advantage of donning a negative definition of atheism (”no belief in a God”), 2) combined with the argument of “The Presumption of Atheism,” and 3) a positivistic disposition–it makes complete sense why many contemporary atheists want to define their own camp in negative terms as “without theism, no belief in a God” instead of the historic and traditional usage of atheism as the positive position of “disbelief in God.” Addressing the complexity of the issue we find in the modern era, the term “agnostic” was coined by Thomas Huxley in 1889 with reference to his own conviction that knowledge about God’s existence or non-existence is impossible. He did not consider himself an atheist, but found himself being called one. Not surprisingly, the borders between “atheism” and “agnosticism” are often blurry or invisible. So for atheism to be distinct, defensible, and publically viable, it needs the help of some categorical distinctions since atheists are widely diverse and do not necessarily hold a party line when they don the moniker “atheist.” Somewhere in the Modern era there seems to have been a division then in both Agnosticism and Atheism, rendering four categories from the previous two.
These categories are used by Michael Martin, Antony Flew, and William Rowe. I use these categories myself and find them quite helpful in clarifying some of the subtleties that arise in these debates. However, these are not standardized, and do not necessarily reflect the long history or widescale contemporary usage of “agnostic” and “atheist.” I recommend these categories for clarity of usage, but we should be careful not to follow, unthinking, the contemporary popular usage of “atheist” and “atheism” as being weak agnosticism. Etymology, history, and much contemporary standard sources defy that definition. Don’t believe me? Check some of the sources listed below. The latest entry is by atheist Kai Nielsen. William Rowe is also atheist. And I think Paul Edwards is too.
June 30th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
I struggled for two hours to format this thing correctly. I guess I’m too computer iliterate. I hope the strange spacing and uberlong paragraph doesn’t bother you guys too much.
June 30th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
It looked fine when I was working on it in word processor, but I guess computer language can’t read “spacebar.”
July 1st, 2009 at 11:31 am
“Hence Christians were accused of atheism. …However in recent times the definition has come under question by atheist themselves.”
Surely a definition of atheist that could be applied to Christians would not be a terribly useful one in the modern age? As such, I don’t see why anyone nowadays would not want a better definition of the word, whether they are Christian, atheist or whatever.
Can you think of a supernatural entity that you don’t believe exists? eg, other Gods, fairies, elves, fire-breathing dragons etc. What would you class your attitude towards them as? In other words, the equivalent of atheist, or the equivalent of agnostic. I would have thought that your position would be that although you can’t make a positive statement about their non-existence, you generally hold that they don’t, pending evidence to the contrary. That sums up my attitude to God.
You could argue that it’s irrational to reject every God, given than many people will define a deity differently. I don’t get this argument - you can devise a definition of God such that I can no longer automatically reject it - eg God is the sun, God is love, God is the beginning of the universe, God is a ham sandwich - but if you’re going to play that game then it is the label God that becomes meaningless, not atheism.
July 1st, 2009 at 11:33 am
By the way, interesting discussion on atheism/agnosticism here:
http://atheistexperience.blogs.....heist.html
Includes these definitions:
An agnostic may be a theist or an atheist. A theist holds an assertive belief in one or more Gods, and an atheists lacks a belief in God(s).
An agnositic admittdedly lacks explicit knowledge of God(s).
A Gnostic claims to posses explicit knowledge of God(s).
Gnosticism and Theism are very different things. There can be Gnostic Atheists, and Agnotistic Theists.
July 1st, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Andrew, I don’t think you followed my argument close enough. I’m simply defining atheism in light of its history. The point about Romans was obviously not that atheism includes theism. That would be ludicrous. Rather, the Romans could not fathom someone rejecting the Roman Gods, and regardless of what Christians thought about other Gods, with respect to Roman Gods they were atheists–CONSCIOUSLY REJECTING the Roman God. Relevant to Roman concerns, they were practical atheists. Atheism then, is not merely “withholding God-belief” but rather “rejecting belief in God.” The atheist, ie: atheos, is literally “godless” rejecting God belief. The Romans knew what they were saying, they just weren’t concerned with the Christian God. So they were using “atheist” with respect to one’s disbelief towards Roman Gods. Presumably, for them, disbelieving the Roman Gods results in impiety in the sense of “godlessness.”
Oh, and I have no problem saying I’m an atheist with respect to other Gods besides Yahweh. I wouldn’t use the word “atheist” of myself without qualification though since that would suggest I reject, without qualification, any and all “gods.” But again I am then using atheist in its default “strong/positive” sense which aligns with ancient history on into modern and contemporary usage.
I suppose my overall point is that it is dubious to try to invent a new definition for “atheism” so as to have the strategic advantage in debate (which seems to be the case with “The Presumption of Atheism” and the ethos it inspired since then).
July 1st, 2009 at 12:16 pm
“I suppose my overall point is that it is dubious to try to invent a new definition for “atheism” so as to have the strategic advantage in debate”
I thought I had followed your argument! The Roman definition of atheism is one you say yourself is not particularly useful to us now. Surely the meaning used by atheists in debates is a more useful and sensible one?
If YOU were debating the existence of a supernatural being that YOU did not believe in - fairies, elves, fire-breathing dragons etc - don’t you think that saying the burden of proof lay with the other side would actually be a FAIR statement to make, not one that you would have to claim simply for expediency or advantage?
July 1st, 2009 at 12:24 pm
At any rate, perhaps it made more sense in Roman times to have ‘believing in a god’ as a default setting. They had no decent naturalistic explanation for so many things (notwithstanding their advanced civilisation with regards to plumbing etc).
July 1st, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Andrew, again you did not follow my argument because I cited at the end several STANDARD REFERENCES which clearly point out that currently atheism is defined only secondarily as “no belief in a God.” Check the sources. People are literally trying to redefine atheism because its historic AND CURRENT definition is inconvenient to them. For another reference check Antony Flew’s “Dictionary of Philosophy,” the entry on “atheism.” At the time of writing it he was a negative atheist, in the “agnostic” vein as you seem to be advocating. But even he defines atheism as “rejecting” belief in God. Rejection is a not abstention. That is a claim that no God exists rather than a withholding of belief about God’s existence.
Furthermore, if you are proposing that a new negative definition is needed in distinction from the classic definition then you are admitting: 1) the negative definition is indeed new, and not the historic definition; and 2) the etymological arguments I make are correct. This puts salt in the eyes of many current negative atheists who claim that atheism is simply “a-theism” ie: “lack of theism.” This etymology, as I show, is flawed and constitutes an anglicized reinterpretation of a heavy and historical term. It mixes a latin root (misapplied by the way) with an english word, and so arrives at a different definition than “atheism” merits, etymologically speaking. The alpha privative can also indicate negation as in, “an-archy” (the alpha privative takes a vowel in front of vowels). And this is how it applies with the term atheos.
Yes the theist has a burden of proof, but so does the atheist. For example, the atheist has to make the case that the universe is a sufficient cause for itself while the theist has to make the case that the universe has a cause from outside itself. Neither of which are particularly probable, but only one can be actual.
July 1st, 2009 at 3:16 pm
“For example, the atheist has to make the case that the universe is a sufficient cause for itself ”
No - an atheist can believe in any number of causes of the universe. Just not God. And ‘God must have done it then’, is not a sufficient default reply to ‘I don’t know how the universe was caused’.
I don’t see why the etymology is important. Language can evolve beyond original meanings
July 1st, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Honestly, I think this whole premise is pointless. An atheist is a person who does not believe in god. They may believe there is no god, they may believe there could be a god but that there is not enough evidence to say and so they operate on the belief that there isn’t, or a number of other beliefs/lacks thereof. This squabble seems to be an attempt to divert from other more important issues by forcing people who identify as “atheists” to take one point of view or another.
Just because certain atheists may have used the word to refer to a specific type of atheism in the past doesn’t obligate the rest of us to use that exact same definition, any more than it requires all Christians to identify as Baptists.
July 1st, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Maybe we could be called CONSCIENTIOUS REJECTORS!
July 1st, 2009 at 8:33 pm
Andrew,
“The Roman definition of atheism is one you say yourself is not particularly useful to us now. Surely the meaning used by atheists in debates is a more useful and sensible one?”
–I myself DO NOT say this. The meaning of the term from back in Greco-Roman days is the same MEANING that it has held throughout the medieval, the renaissance, the scholaStic, the modern, and the contemporary eras. One particular Roman USAGE of “atheist” reflected an ignorance of monotheism (ie: if its not polytheism then it is not any kind of theism), but it actually verifies how “atheist” means “one who rejects God/s.”
Andrew and Tim,
here is why the historical (and contemporary) definition of “atheist” and “atheism” matters. Suppose a herd of Christians apologists and A couple of militant non-Christians decide to agree that “atheism” means “someone who believes in God but hates him.” And these people start spreading this definition around and continue using the term “atheist” in normal conversation as if their revamped definition is somehow normative or conventional for that term. How would you approach that new definition? Would it bother you that these people are now defining “atheist” to actually include God-belief? That new definition seems to carry an agenda, and it seems duplicitous to use it in substitution for how the word has been used previously.
Nowadays, some people been trying to redefine “atheist” into negative atheism. The standard definition is still widespread and normative within dictionary definitions, encyclopedia definitions, and in many works by atheists themselves. So this new definition, which seems to carry an agenda (why not just call yourself agnostic? it means the same thing as negative atheism), is not altogether welcome since the historic and conventional usage of the term indicates that it MEANS “one who rejects of belief in God”.
People are still welcome to refer to “negative atheism” but to call it “atheism” is to demonstrate either your own ignorance of the rich history of this concept or to commit a bit of sophistry by equivocating on terms. At some point language breaks down if we introduce new definitions and try to normalize them without any widespread convention in our favor. I’m still not sure why people want to wear the title “atheist” but mean “agnostic.” That’s the big reason why “atheist” never meant agnostic until recently. “Skeptic” covered that territory in ancient and medieval times. And in modern times, “agnostic” was invented to dignify that “neutral” stance of abstaining from God belief. Agnostic is a better term in general because it refers to knowledge about God, not claims about God. Whereas theism and atheism historically represent polarities where one affirms God’s existence the other denies his existence. They are not particularly talking about “knowledge” (gnosis) but rather making claims for or against God’s existence. So if someone is wanting to say they lack or withhold belief or knowledge about God, a-gnostic, is more technically precise.
But if imprecise is what you are going for, then I can’t stop you.
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:45 am
John, you’re the one trying to redefine atheism because you have no argument against its actual definition. You want atheists to claim there is no God. But again, the definition of a person who claims there is no God is an anti-theist. That would be me. And guess what. You have no arguments against that position either. Try me.
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:41 am
John, Tim’s post seemed pretty on the nail to me, and I don’t see that you’ve answered it, or my points either. You obviously disagree, so I don’t see that we can really move forward.
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:31 am
Boris what do you mean by “actual definition”? If you think I’m “redefining” something then you are going to have to show where in my argument I am doing the redefining. I don’t see it. I’m arguing the exact opposite, that many contemporary atheists (like yourself) are trying to redefine it, many without realizing that they are stepping outside of their own historic tradition and linguistic convention to do so. And while I’m fine with the term anti-theist (we addressed this elsewhere) I think we both know that’s not standard terminology, so it can be unhelpful in some circles. Plus you don’t seem to be aware that the “a” in the front of “atheist” is called an alpha privitive and means, in this case, negation. So your use of the term “anti-theist” is redundant since “atheist” has meant and does mean the same thing.
Andrew, you don’t seem to appreciate the subtle point I’m trying to make since you kept saying “the Roman definition” as if it is different from the contemporary definition, and since you seem to think that we can just change language willy-nilly so long as culture affords it. I’m not trying to put words into anyone’s mouth, nor am I trying to make some grandiose theistic claim. I’m merely dealing with word history and definitions to enlighten atheists and agnostics who read this blog to the fact that “atheist,” left unqualified (unlike “positive/negative atheist” or “strong/weak atheist” etc.) communicates something different from what they may think it communicates. This whole song and dance over the redefinition of atheism really hinders communication and prevents a lot of positive discussion on important subjects because we get hung up what “atheist” means. But the answer is not to just ignore the issue but rather to resolve it. Words do matter. And saying something is “just semantics” is still rather heavy since that is saying it is “just meaningful.”
Also, I should note that “THE burden of proof” can be a misleading phrase since it indicates that there is only one burden to bear, when in debates both parties are liable to have the burden of proof provided both are making a claim of some sort such as: “God exists” or “No God exists.” If, however, the two parties say: “God exists” and “God may or may not exist.”–then only the first party has a burden of proof. With atheism, classically defined, a claim is being made therefore the atheist would share in burden of proof. And with my example of the origin of the universe, I stand by my example and contend that you do not understand the standard procedure of debate/rhetoric in regards to “burden of proof.”
Tim’s objection demonstrates unfamiliarity with this subject matter since he dismisses it as pointless and then EQUATEs the positive and negative forms of atheism though that is precisely at issue I’m attacking. He says, “An atheist is a person who does not believe in God” (negative atheism) then he says “They may believe there is no god [positive atheism], they may believe there could be a god but that there is not enough evidence to say” [Positive atheism]. Equating the two is problematic, and forces us to add questions whenever someone says they are “atheist.” I.E.: Are you a “God doesn’t exist” atheist or a “I have no belief in a God” atheist? This subtle distinction determines one’s burden of proof, it determines whether someone is making a knowledge claim, it determines whether someone’s attitude towards the “god-concept” rises to the level of knowledge, belief, or neither. There is a lot packed into this little issue.
No one is answering why these redefined atheists don’t just call themselves agnostic? There is no real contention over that term, and using it would not amount to a rebellion against millenia of past Atheists nor against the current global community of academic atheists today. I suspect that “agnostic” just isn’t as sexy a term as “atheist”–the latter sounds more daring and interesting. But “atheism” is much less defensible so they use the term “atheist” but define as “agnostic.” That way a person can have his cake and eat it too.
July 2nd, 2009 at 5:05 am
OK, I will post a proper reply later (I’m at work now), but I’ve got a quick response to this:
“Suppose a herd of Christians apologists and A couple of militant non-Christians decide to agree that “atheism” means “someone who believes in God but hates him.” ”
In fact, John, that is the definition that most Christians I talk to DO actually subscribe to. I’ve lost count of the number of Christians who insist I hate a being that I don’t actually believe exists. Perhaps you should work also on re-educating all of THESE people too.
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:32 am
And these people start spreading this definition around and continue using the term “atheist” in normal conversation as if their revamped definition is somehow normative or conventional for that term. How would you approach that new definition? Would it bother you that these people are now defining “atheist” to actually include God-belief? That new definition seems to carry an agenda, and it seems duplicitous to use it in substitution for how the word has been used previously.
On the one hand, I agree that it is important to understand proper word usage (or at least be aware of mass numbers of people who do not use words properly) and the connotations thereof. On the other hand, I am not willing to simply change the way I use a word because a small number of people (or even a large number) have decided to use it differently than I had intended.
It’s like people who use the word “love” to describe practices that discriminate or cause pain or suffering to others, or to refer to a notion of god. I don’t acknowledge that as the proper definition of the word, although I have come to understand that other people use it as such.
Nowadays, some people been trying to redefine “atheist” into negative atheism. The standard definition is still widespread and normative within dictionary definitions, encyclopedia definitions, and in many works by atheists themselves. So this new definition, which seems to carry an agenda (why not just call yourself agnostic? it means the same thing as negative atheism), is not altogether welcome since the historic and conventional usage of the term indicates that it MEANS “one who rejects of belief in God”.
Problem is, “atheism” encompasses both of those beliefs. It can be one or the other. Agnosticism is not the same thing as atheism; agnosticism is closer to the religious end of the spectrum.
Which leads me to the question: If you think this thing called “negative atheism” (I’m not sure which end you’re referring to when you say that) is synonymous with agnosticism, then what word would you prefer that people use to refer to people who don’t believe in god (and who won’t without a significant amount of non-metaphorical evidence), but who are open to what they perceive as the distant possibility that such evidence exists?
Whereas theism and atheism historically represent polarities where one affirms God’s existence the other denies his existence.
I suppose in a way an atheist could be said to deny god’s existence; although I’d say it’s still in much looser terms than you’re claiming. I, for example, assume that god does not exist, and I can argue that for awhile in any given direction; so basically, you could say I deny that he exists. Although I am also open to being swayed (as difficult as that may actually be to do).
But if imprecise is what you are going for, then I can’t stop you.
I still think this whole sidebar is mostly irrelevant; for one, you’re the very first person that I’ve ever heard complain about “misuse of the word atheism.” Everybody else with whom I’ve ever spoken seems to understand what I’m talking about when I say “atheist” (and that is not a hyperbole). So as far as I am concerned, there is no real problem among Christians or atheists with regard to what the word means, unless you have some evidence to suggest that this is a “widespread epidemic” of misunderstanding.
“An atheist is a person who does not believe in God” (negative atheism)
I don’t mean “absolutely believe in no god,” I mean, “believe, given the available evidence, that there is no god.” They are very different things. The phrase “a person who does not believe in god” simply refers to someone who lacks belief in god, for whatever reason — be it because they deny his existence, or because they don’t know that he exists and so don’t consider it worth their time to assume he does.
“They may believe there is no god [positive atheism], they may believe there could be a god but that there is not enough evidence to say” [Positive atheism]
I’m not entirely sure why you call both of these “positive atheism,” as they represent very different beliefs….do you perhaps mean “positive” as in “affirmative?”
Equating the two is problematic, and forces us to add questions whenever someone says they are “atheist.” I.E.: Are you a “God doesn’t exist” atheist or a “I have no belief in a God” atheist?
Do you want everyone to acknowledge your definition of atheism so that you don’t have to ask one extra question in a debate? Am I understanding this correctly?
No one is answering why these redefined atheists don’t just call themselves agnostic?
If they are agnostic, and not atheist, then I imagine they would call themselves that. Agnosticism aligns more closely with a belief in some force, or entity, or god, whereas atheism is basically the secular alternative. Most self-proclaimed agnostics I know are people who say they believe in god, but don’t adhere to any particular religion — the whole “persona god” concept. Whereas atheists do not.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:40 am
“No one is answering why these redefined atheists don’t just call themselves agnostic?”
I thought we’d gone through this already. You mentioned Huxley’s definition that an agnostic is someone who believes knowledge about God’s existence or non-existence is impossible. The problem is that this could apply to both Christians and atheists *. It also isn’t particularly informative about what someone truly believes. There are lots of supernatural beings/phenomena about which we could agree that knowledge of their existence or other is impossible. And yet to describe me merely as ‘agnostic’ with regards to elves, fairies, tokoloshes etc would be misleading. I live as if I don’t accept their existence. Show me evidence and I’ll consider it. Until then my default state is to assume they probably don’t. See also my attitude to God. Hence agnostic alone is not sufficient.
I’m going to presume that you don’t call yourself an agnostic either, and would reject atheist’s attempt to pin that label on you, and not because it isn’t ’sexy’ enough for you (really, John!) but because it doesn’t describe you beliefs either.
* Wiki sums it up pretty well:
Agnostic atheism, also called Atheistic agnosticism, encompasses atheism and agnosticism. An agnostic atheist is atheistic because he or she does not believe in the existence of any deity and is also agnostic because he or she does not claim to have definitive knowledge that a deity does not exist.
The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who does believe that one or more deities exist but does not claim to have definitive knowledge of this.
It is possible for an agnostic atheist to subscribe to weak atheism but not to strong atheism as strong atheism makes the claim that no God(s) exist, a claim of knowledge that violates agnosticism’s touchstone propostion that knowledge of God(s) is impossible for the time being, or impossible altogether.
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:41 pm
John,
I had five years of Ancient Greek. So don’t tell me what little you know about it. A (no) theism (God belief) means exactly that: a person with no belief in God. It is YOU who are desperately trying to redefine this word because you have no argument against the true definition of atheism. Your claim that you “don’t see it” just mans that you don’t see that you are totally wrong. But you are and several of the other bloggers here have proved that several times now. That’s the problem with arguing with people who hold to dogmatic religious superstitions like you do. You people will never admit you are wrong about something to an unbeliever because you know the next thing you’ll hear is: Well if you’re wrong about that, then you’re probably wrong about God, the Bible and your hokey and absurd religion. You can’t deal with putting yourself on the defensive like that because there really are no good Christian answers to atheism and you KNOW it. In fact there is no God and you KNOW that too. Everyone’s an atheist. No one really believes they all just want to very badly. Prove me wrong with some more of your religious dogma and nonsense John. ROFL!
July 2nd, 2009 at 12:47 pm
Andrew,
Thanks for responding to my particular question. That is helpful. I do not consider myself an agnostic in any useful sense of the word since I affirm that knowledge of God/s is not only possible but actual. I do use the “weak/strong” distinction for agnosticism too, though it has a different application for agnosticism than it does for atheism, and agnosticism and atheism have different histories and complexities involved in their development. The progress of the term “Atheism” clearly points to “strong atheism,” however the development of the term “agnosticism” seems to waver between “strong forms only” and the broad view including both strong and weak forms.
Oh, and while Wiki is certainly helpful, it is usually considered suspect or questionable as a source so it has to be carefully used, if at all, in academic discourse. The article you referred to has only one source from 1903 to validate the legitimacy of the term, Robert Flint. While that is a valid source, and its age is helpful to its case, it is still unclear whether anyone else at that time or since (up until recently that is) has recognized a formal or accepted category of “agnostic atheist” or “atheist agnostic.” Those categories are helpful though, and I might use them myself. I will have to be careful to qualify them if I use them though because I’m not sure whether they are standard or conventional categories in any significant sense.
Huxley’s agnosticism is a bit of a rabbit hole. It goes pretty deep.
Agnosticism as a term developed more recently, and with a bit more divergence than atheism did. While Huxley himself was a strong agnostic, believing knowledge about God was impossible. His term was understood differently by different audiences ever since he first coined it in 1869.
1) Was huxley speaking only of himself or suggesting that knowledge of God is impossible for everyone?
2) Was the “impossibility” part of the definition? or is it enough that someone simply lacks knowledge of God or strongly suspects that knowledge of God MIGHT be impossible?
3) Is his “lack of faith” then more definitive of agnosticism than his “lack of knowledge”?
These questions were circulating early on so that Huxley had to write an article in response (”Agnosticism” 1889) to clarify the definition. But he largely ended up rebutting the ministers who demanded he call himself “infidel” instead of “agnostic.” And he still left open the question of whether agnosticism is the hard or soft kind or both. He says,
“[Speaking of theists, deists, and pantheists] They were quite sure they had attained a certain “gnosis,”–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.”
We see here why “strong agnosticism” can be interpreted as definitive “agnosticism.” However, Huxley is saying that he is SURE that he lacks knowledge of God, but he has only a STRONG CONVICTION that the problem is insoluble. Is he “sure” or does he just have a strong conviction? And which parts are included in the definition?
Huxley also says about agnosticism:
* Its method is that of Socrates, “Try all things, hold fast by that which is good”–this accomodates both weak and strong forms.
* “working out of the agnostic principle will vary according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science. That which is unproven today may be proven by the help of new discoveries to-morrow.”–there may be some variation according to the individual and the advance of science. We might wonder if he thinks the Big Bang constitutes scientific evidence for supernature.
* “The only negative fixed points will be those negations which flow from the demonstrable limitation of our faculties.”–While this may seem conducive to the “strong agnostic” definition, Huxley immediately adds, “And the only obligation accepted is to have the mind always open to conviction.” This sounds like open mindedness to new convictions, a principled concession against even his own current “conviction” that knowledge of God is impossible.
* He adds in a different article, also in 1889, called “Christianity and Agnosticism” that, “it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism.”–But if that is the essential part of agnosticism, then the “impossibility” criterion is not essential to it.
So it seems clear that Huxley was a strong agnostic himself, but it is not clear whether he included the “strong” part in his own definition of agnosticism. While he may, at points have defined “agnosticism” in the strong sense, at other times he defined it more generally to allow for both weak and strong senses. The essential part of agnosticism then seems to be, “lacking knowledge of God.”
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Boris,
If you have an argument to make, then make it. But if you are not interested in respectful and scholarly dialogue on issues of importance then there are other pulp blog sites you can go on to rant about how “Everyone’s an atheist.”
I’ve studied Greek too, and can speak from my particular studies in this field and with the sourcing to back me up that your estimation of the definition of “atheism” is a common misconception which I addressed in the first paragraph of my article. If you have counter evidence I’m willing to hear it, but if you have only assertions with nothing more than your own “authority” supporting them, then I can only assume you have no argument in your favor.
when I’m wrong I’m willing to admit I’m wrong. I have done it before, and I’ll do it again. But I cede to strong arguments, good evidence, and rational deduction. Emotionally charged rants about how “everyone’s an atheist” are not very convincing to me. I’m too much of a freethinker and skeptic to cede to bold assertions which have no support. Yes, I don’t just swallow what preachers feed me, I chew my food and occassionly spit it out if it tastes funny.
I’d also like to hear your argument for the bold claim that “everyone’s an atheist.”
Please show your work in supporting the claim, “there really are no good Christian answers to atheism and you KNOW it”
And I’d also like to see how you can justify speaking of me, and presumably some associates of mine, as “you people” without it being a hasty generalization. What is your defense for yourself?
I’ve heard your assertions, now lets measure the quality of your arguments. If you really want to be an intellectual, free-thinker, skeptic, or atheist who does not make an embarassment of your associates, then we’ll need to see some measured analysis and critique that shows you did your homework before forming and broadcasting your conclusions. In this article you have some my notes and study, so please show us yours. I have no particular problem with atheists, skeptics, free-thinkers, or agnostics. But no one likes a bully or a jerk.
I welcome your disagreement. I celebrate good dialogue on controversial issues. But without healthy decorum and some mutual respect then it is not any fun or benefit to anybody.
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:02 pm
So John, you haven’t answered my own question. What word would you use to apply to your attitude to other supernatural phenomena such as fairies, elves, tokoloshes etc? Are you ‘atheist’ on these subjects? Or merely ‘agnostic’.
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Andrew, is consciously disbelieve those characters so I would be an atheist towards them.
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Oops, I consciously disbelieve . . .
July 2nd, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Can you just clarify John - do you take this position because you find it ’sexier’, as you put it? Do you take it because you believe it gives you an argumentative advantage over being merely ‘agnostic’? I’m guessing in both cases the answer is no.
Do you think my attitude to Gods is different to your attitude to fairies etc?
How can you consciously disbelieve those characters without having an exhaustive list of differing definitions of fairies? How do you know that is possible to claim knowledge of their existence or non-existance either way? And since you cannot claim to be an authority on fairy literature, surely your position is arrogant? I could go on, but I’m sure you grasp my blunt satire. These are the Christian arguments that would claim you can only be ‘agnostic’ on fairies/elves etc.
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:16 pm
John before we move on, what can you tell me about neuter plural nouns?
July 2nd, 2009 at 3:16 pm
In ancient Greek I mean.
July 2nd, 2009 at 4:03 pm
And these people start spreading this definition around and continue using the term “atheist” in normal conversation as if their revamped definition is somehow normative or conventional for that term. How would you approach that new definition? Would it bother you that these people are now defining “atheist” to actually include God-belief? That new definition seems to carry an agenda, and it seems duplicitous to use it in substitution for how the word has been used previously.
On the one hand, I agree that it is important to understand proper word usage (or at least be aware of mass numbers of people who do not use words properly) and the connotations thereof. On the other hand, I am not willing to simply change the way I use a word because a small number of people (or even a large number) have decided to use it differently than I had intended.
It’s like people who use the word “love” to describe practices that discriminate or cause pain or suffering to others, or to refer to a notion of god. I don’t acknowledge that as the proper definition of the word, although I have come to understand that other people use it as such.
Nowadays, some people been trying to redefine “atheist” into negative atheism. The standard definition is still widespread and normative within dictionary definitions, encyclopedia definitions, and in many works by atheists themselves. So this new definition, which seems to carry an agenda (why not just call yourself agnostic? it means the same thing as negative atheism), is not altogether welcome since the historic and conventional usage of the term indicates that it MEANS “one who rejects of belief in God”.
Problem is, “atheism” encompasses both of those beliefs. It can be one or the other. Agnosticism is not the same thing as atheism; agnosticism is closer to the religious end of the spectrum.
Which leads me to the question: If you think this thing called “negative atheism” (I’m not sure which end you’re referring to when you say that) is synonymous with agnosticism, then what word would you prefer that people use to refer to people who don’t believe in god (and who won’t without a significant amount of non-metaphorical evidence), but who are open to what they perceive as the distant possibility that such evidence exists?
Whereas theism and atheism historically represent polarities where one affirms God’s existence the other denies his existence.
I suppose in a way an atheist could be said to deny god’s existence; although I’d say it’s still in much looser terms than you’re claiming. I, for example, assume that god does not exist, and I can argue that for awhile in any given direction; so basically, you could say I deny that he exists. Although I am also open to being swayed (as difficult as that may actually be to do).
But if imprecise is what you are going for, then I can’t stop you.
I still think this whole sidebar is mostly irrelevant; for one, you’re the very first person that I’ve ever heard complain about “misuse of the word atheism.” Everybody else with whom I’ve ever spoken seems to understand what I’m talking about when I say “atheist” (and that is not a hyperbole). So as far as I am concerned, there is no real problem among Christians or atheists with regard to what the word means, unless you have some evidence to suggest that this is a “widespread epidemic” of misunderstanding.
“An atheist is a person who does not believe in God” (negative atheism)
I don’t mean “absolutely believe in no god,” I mean, “believe, given the available evidence, that there is no god.” They are very different things. The phrase “a person who does not believe in god” simply refers to someone who lacks belief in god, for whatever reason — be it because they deny his existence, or because they don’t know that he exists and so don’t consider it worth their time to assume he does.
“They may believe there is no god [positive atheism], they may believe there could be a god but that there is not enough evidence to say” [Positive atheism]
I’m not entirely sure why you call both of these “positive atheism,” as they represent very different beliefs….do you perhaps mean “positive” as in “affirmative?”
Equating the two is problematic, and forces us to add questions whenever someone says they are “atheist.” I.E.: Are you a “God doesn’t exist” atheist or a “I have no belief in a God” atheist?
Do you want everyone to acknowledge your definition of atheism so that you don’t have to ask one extra question in a debate? Am I understanding this correctly?
No one is answering why these redefined atheists don’t just call themselves agnostic?
If they are agnostic, and not atheist, then I imagine they would call themselves that. Agnosticism aligns more closely with a belief in some force, or entity, or god, whereas atheism is basically the secular alternative. Most self-proclaimed agnostics I know are people who say they believe in god, but don’t adhere to any particular religion — the whole “persona god” concept. Whereas atheists do not.
when I’m wrong I’m willing to admit I’m wrong.
I think that’s a bit of an overstatement; what I always say is, “When I think I am wrong, I’m willing to admit I’m wrong.” And in order for me to think I’m wrong, I need to hear a decent case to the contrary of my position.
Not trying to be petty, but I think your statement here commits the fallacy of assuming that you will always know when you are wrong (really, that anyone will).
July 2nd, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Boris, I’m not on trial. The arguments are. So your question is a non-sequiter.
Andrew, no “sexiness” is not a motivating factor for me. Yes I’m am atheist towards all gods but Yahweh. So that means I believe they do not exist. I am making a positive claim that I’m willing to defend were we in a debate. I am not claiming to have certain knowledge of their non-existence but probable knowledge based on the limited experience and evidence I have so far encountered. If I come across some evidence or field of study that is compelling enough to lend substantive weight to the existence of fairies, then I might become an agnostic towards Fairies or maybe a believer. In certain other regards, like certain eschatological issues or some scientific claims, I’m “agnostic” but only in a metaphorical sense because “agnostic” is supposed to refer God-belief.
July 2nd, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Boris, I’m not on trial. The arguments are. So your question is a non-sequiter.
Boris says: Ahem, you’re the author of the article this thread is about. So you are the person who is on trial here, not me. You made claim that you had studied Greek. Apparently not at the academic level or you would have answered my question. In fact I doubt you ever took Freshman English either, because non sequitur is spelled with a u and without a hyphen.
I’d also like to hear your argument for the bold claim that “everyone’s an atheist.”
Boris says: Every Christian who tries to escape the path of a speeding bullet or car with fear in his eye is an example that proves no one really believes in God. Also the fact that you cannot prove you actually believe what you say you do bolsters my case.
Please show your work in supporting the claim, “there really are no good Christian answers to atheism and you KNOW it”
Boris says: Make your best arguments right here and now and watch me demolish them.
My comments were made to make you think outside the dogma and doctrine other people have brainwashed you with. You haven’t heard or seen them before and so you are unable to cut and paste any responses to them. Without being able to spew other people’s answers to things I aim to show you cannot come up with any good answers on your own. You gave up the ability to think for yourself a long time ago.
July 3rd, 2009 at 2:29 am
” If I come across some evidence or field of study that is compelling enough to lend substantive weight to the existence of fairies, then I might become an agnostic towards Fairies or maybe a believer”
Right, and I’m in the same boat with regards to God. So Atheism is the right term for me, no? Haven’t you just destroyed your own argument?
July 3rd, 2009 at 10:12 am
Andrew, I’m using the terms “atheist” and “agnostic” as I have defined them in my article. So no I haven’t destroyed my own argument. Plus Andrew you’ve done considerable study and discussion on the God of Christianity so there is a disanalogy between your view on that God versus your view on say, Baachus or Baal. Sure, other people might consider these mythological gods to be viable and worthy of belief. But they are not even on your or my radar screen. However you and I both have enough evidence and exposure to good argumentation to have an informed opinion on whether or not God exists.
Tim, you make a good point at the close of your last entry. I was wrong in how phrased my point. Here’s a better way to say it: If I think I’m wrong I’ll admit that I’m wrong. If I’m confident that I’m wrong, then likewise I’ll admit I’m wrong.
July 3rd, 2009 at 10:41 am
“Sure, other people might consider these mythological gods to be viable and worthy of belief. But they are not even on your or my radar screen.”
Isn’t this special pleading John? How do you know whether or not they are viable or worthy of your belief UNTIL you’ve done all the study and discussion? Are you saying that one shouldn’t dismiss Christianity without the study and discussion, but one CAN dismiss other religions/supernatural agents without it?
“Andrew, I’m using the terms “atheist” and “agnostic” as I have defined them in my article. So no I haven’t destroyed my own argument.”
Yes, I assumed that you WERE using the terms by the definitions you set out in your article. Isn’t your argument that many self-labeled atheists should call themselves agnostics instead? And yet their attitude and beliefs in God/s could be the same as your attitude to fairies/elves etc, and you regard yourself as the equivalent of ‘atheist’ with regards to these entities.
You said ”If I come across some evidence or field of study that is compelling enough to lend substantive weight to the existence of fairies, then I might become an agnostic towards Fairies or maybe a believer”.
You might BECOME an agnostic towards fairies. In other words the word would not currently be applicable to you. As I said before, that’s more or less my attitude to God/s. So what’s wrong with me saying:
”If I come across some evidence or field of study that is compelling enough to lend substantive weight to the existence of GOD, then I might become an agnostic or maybe a believer. But in the interim I remain an atheist.”
July 3rd, 2009 at 11:22 am
“Plus Andrew you’ve done considerable study and discussion on the God of Christianity so there is a disanalogy between your view on that God versus your view on say, Baachus or Baal.”
I’d dispute this anyway. I don’t believe in Gods for lots of reasons, but I don’t really see one as being more or less likely than any other. Reading up or debating the existence of any particular God doesn’t affect how likely I see that one as compared to another. Reading the Koran, the Bible, or any holy book, doesn’t affect my opinion on the likelihood of the Gods depicted. Some Gods might strike me as being more logically self-defeating than others, but that’s another matter.
By the way, I’m aware that many of these analogy will be difficult for you to take, John. Any comparison of your faith to believing in fairies will be insulting to you, and for this I apologise. But I’m guessing that you don’t see Allah as being any more likely to exist as elves or fairies either! That this is insulting to believers is unfortunate, but it’s hard to come up with alternative analogies that don’t equate your beliefs with something we both find absurd.
July 3rd, 2009 at 11:48 am
Perhaps this might explain it better. You reject the range of Hindu Gods. Multi-armed Vishnu, blue-face Shiva, elephant-headed Ganesh - you and I both respectfully believe that hundreds of millions of Hindus are completely barking up the wrong tree with these deities.
Now, if you and I lived with a Hindu who was really into Ganesh and had long discussions with us about Him, explained all about Him and enjoyed debates with us and the pachyderm/deity, I don’t think it would make me see Ganesh any differently to how I see Khali. I’d be better informed on Him, but only in the same way that I’m better informed on the characters of Narnia compared to Middle Earth.
Jonh, wouldn’t you be the same? All of these Hindu Gods are false to you, and reading or discussing any one in particular won’t change your mind on those. It wouldn’t be correct for our Hindu friend to call it a false analogy to compare your beliefs about Ganesh with your beliefs about Vishnu. “But we’ve spent such a long time discussing Ganesh!” he could say.
Just broaden that to ALL Gods, and in fact ALL supernatural agents, then you’ve got my own attitude.
July 3rd, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Andrew, I think we may be talking past each other. At this point, I’m just trying connect your developing line of argument–which is fine, I have no particular objection so far–with the point I was trying to make. But I don’t see how they connect. Maybe if I rephrase you’ll be able to see how I’m misunderstanding you.
The categories “atheist” and “agnostic” don’t require any particular amount of evidence, or probabilistic knowledge, but rather a conviction or belief. “Atheist” refers to disbelief in God, and when we qualify that particular disbelief in context it may refer to disbelief in only a particular God but not necessarily towards another God. “Agnostic,” however is the conviction or belief that one has no knowledge of God. That becomes “hard” or “soft” agnosticism depending on whether that conviction adds “it is impossible” or “it is possible” to have knowledge of God.
In trying to address your line of questioning, I thought you were asking what my view is towards theoretical gods/supernatural/paranormal beings that I haven’t studied much about. (This issue has nothing to do with whether I find it offensive or blasphemous or not. I teach world religions and occultism and have no problem dealing extensively with other and false gods).
In regards to Gods that I have not studied much about, I am somewhere between a negative and a positive atheist. I have no particular belief in them (negative atheism), but I also have the conviction (which still requires more evidence and support) that these obscure Gods are likely to be appropriately categorized with all the other false Gods that I have studied. Plus my knowledge of the Christian God is that only one “ultimate being” can exist–if at all. Since I believe I have good evidence for the Christian God, that is counterevidence against all other claimants. Hence any other “gods” would not be “God” in the same sense, and then we are no longer talking about “atheism/theism/agnosticism.” I admit that my claim that my theism is a probability claim, that can become more or less probable pending further study and evidence. If there arrived considerably more evidence in favor of some obscure deity that I have not previously studied, then I may be swayed to a (weak) agnostic position towards that God, where I no longe reject the possibility of knowing such a God, but neither do I affirm knowing such a God. And of course, if overwhelming evidnece came in, then I would affirm that I know this other God exists instead of the Christian God.
You and Tim both seem to think of agnosticism differently than I do too. It is a mistake to think that “agnostic” somehow is defined as a religious category where someone believes in some sense in a God. A person may in fact believe in a God somehow, but if he refers to himself as “agnostic” that has nothing to do with his belief towards God but rather to his lack of knowledge of any such God, whether such a God exists or not. This defies Huxley’s definition, and the historic normative usage of the term–whether strong or weak agnosticism.
July 3rd, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Thank John. I’ll repost this, can you try to answer:
“Andrew, I’m using the terms “atheist” and “agnostic” as I have defined them in my article. So no I haven’t destroyed my own argument.”
Yes, I assumed that you WERE using the terms by the definitions you set out in your article. Isn’t your argument that many self-labeled atheists should call themselves agnostics instead? And yet their attitude and beliefs in God/s could be the same as your attitude to fairies/elves etc, and you regard yourself as the equivalent of â€atheist’ with regards to these entities.
You said ”If I come across some evidence or field of study that is compelling enough to lend substantive weight to the existence of fairies, then I might become an agnostic towards Fairies or maybe a believer”.
You might BECOME an agnostic towards fairies. In other words the word would not currently be applicable to you. As I said before, that’s more or less my attitude to God/s. So what’s wrong with me saying:
”If I come across some evidence or field of study that is compelling enough to lend substantive weight to the existence of GOD, then I might become an agnostic or maybe a believer. But in the interim I remain an atheist.”
July 3rd, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Andrew,
The reason is that in this “interim” I am consciously and deliberately rejecting other Gods. I believe that they do not exist. I am not passively refraining from or withholding belief about their existence but actively disbelieving their existence. If you hold to that position in regards to all gods, then you are an atheist in the classic (positive) sense just as I am towards all gods but Yahweh.
John
July 3rd, 2009 at 7:42 pm
I should note that I think the more fitting intellectual default position is (weak) agnosticism, or more broadly speaking, some kind of skepticism rather than atheism. Atheism is not the “neutral” category that it’s often made out to be.
July 3rd, 2009 at 8:01 pm
I should note that I think the more fitting intellectual default position is (weak) agnosticism, or more broadly speaking, some kind of skepticism rather than atheism. Atheism is not the “neutral” category that it’s often made out to be.
Given a complete absence of any religious knowledge, I would agree. But the way I see it, religions (any and all forms) are claims that require evidence to back them up. And on the one hand I’d somewhat agree — that a claim that can neither be enforced nor denied can feasibly remain on the table so long as there is good enough reason not to completely discount it — but on the other, I’d say that it’s also unreasonable to expect a person to seriously consider or entertain any and all claims made about knowledge of god(s) (both on a massive social level and on a local or personal level) as “realistically possible” without some kind of case being built around a particular scenario.
I mean, if I were expected to revere as “possible” any claims about religion or god that were made by anyone anywhere, just because I can’t disprove it, then I would have to take UFO cults seriously, as well as myths like Scientology that have been made up just in the past few decades. And so I don’t think it’s entirely accurate to say that what you call “atheism” with regard to such beliefs is “not the default position.” No, I think it’s quite acceptable to default towards believing something is most likely not true simply because the only “evidence” to suggest that it is true is that a lot of people say it is.
July 3rd, 2009 at 11:05 pm
Tim,
I agree with most of what you are saying.
I wouldn’t be scared of the term “possible.” In philosophical terms that is a pretty generous category that does not necessarily mean very much. By “possible” that can mean simply “not logically self-refuting” or it can mean “thinkable,” or “describable in coherent terms.” It doesn’t necessarily mean that given the physical laws of this universe X could actually happen, and would be worthy of our belief.
With the scenario you give about UFO’s and Scientology, I would still maintain that your atheism would not be operating as a default category, but would actually an informed conclusion. True, you have not studied UFO cults directly or Scientology or Fairies, etc. But you have studied some science, you have experienced the world, you have (probably) never encountered any alien life forms, and you’ve never met a sane Scientologist–so you have a basic evidence base to operate from so that you can put forth a working hypothesis that all theories which reject basic tenets of your growing worldview are deemed “kooky.” With God, you have never encountered a person named God, you’ve never seen a miracle, and you’ve never had a uniquely religious experience that compels your belief in a God–given that negative evidence you have some evidence base on which you draw an atheistic conclusion. Your are certainly not defaulting to atheism, but deliberating selecting based on your evidence base and reasoning. Your position is largely my own position in regards to all God’s but Yahweh. I’ve only studied up on a couple of them, so with most of the Gods I’m dismissing I have done little direct study for the positive case for their existence. I’m operating largely on the negative evidence I have from other sources which nevertheless impinge on or prohibit the existence of any God who would fly on a space ship or do anal probes, etc.
July 4th, 2009 at 3:02 am
John, I’m quite astonished that I posted the same question twice, and you twice answered a completely different one. Your answer both times was about consciously rejecting other Gods. Let’s try a third time. After this I’ll assume you are deliberately dodging a question you don’t want to anwer. Here goes:
“Isn’t your argument that many self-labeled atheists should call themselves agnostics instead? And yet their attitude and beliefs in God/s could be the same as your attitude to fairies/elves etc, and you regard yourself as the equivalent of â€atheist’ with regards to these entities.
You said ”If I come across some evidence or field of study that is compelling enough to lend substantive weight to the existence of fairies, then I might become an agnostic towards Fairies or maybe a believer”.
You might BECOME an agnostic towards fairies. In other words the word would not currently be applicable to you. As I said before, that’s more or less my attitude to God/s. So what’s wrong with me saying:
”If I come across some evidence or field of study that is compelling enough to lend substantive weight to the existence of GOD, then I might become an agnostic or maybe a believer. But in the interim I remain an atheist.”
July 4th, 2009 at 9:55 am
What’s the matter John? Afraid to post your best arguments so that Boris can crush them? You posted a retarded article John.
July 4th, 2009 at 9:58 am
Andrew,
Don’t be mistaken, I’m still trying to legitimize atheism as a category, but merely make a critical distinction so that contemporary atheists are not distancing themselves from a defensible historic definition of their own term. I’m not saying that atheists should CONVERT to agnosticism, nor that agnostics should CALL themselves atheists. I am implying that many self-labeled atheists are defining themselves as agnostics without realizing it. The definition they are espousing IS NOT ATHEISM, even if the belief system they ACTUALLY hold IS atheism. Likely, many of those people using “atheist” in the “without theism” sense really are themselves active rejectors of theism (ie: strong atheism) but for discussion and debating tactics they just pretend to be “without theism.” When I was clarifying my own position towards strange and obscure deities I was demonstrating how a person can consistently and consciously espouse atheism in the classic definition with regard to gods they have not studied in particular. Agnosticism is a better term for the “without theism” position, but a person is not forced into agnosticism in regards to obscure deities just because he’s ignorant about faeries, Baal, and chupacabra. One can still reject those gods (strong atheism/classic atheism) based on the negative evidence lent by their experience and reasoning about the world wherein these alternative gods are excluded. I’ve never met Baal so I actively disbelieve Baal. I’m atheistic towards Baal, even though I have not studied the religions of Baal with any significant effort.
July 4th, 2009 at 11:50 am
“Likely, many of those people using “atheist” in the “without theism” sense really are themselves active rejectors of theism (ie: strong atheism) but for discussion and debating tactics they just pretend to be “without theism.””
For the fourth time, and I’ll try paraphrasing to fit the above, if you were debating the existence of fairies with someone, which class would you put yourself in, and for discussion and debating tactics, which position would you adopt?
July 4th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Andrew
“which class would you put yourself in, and for discussion and debating tactics, which position would you adopt?”
I’m not sure what I’m missing here but I’ve answered this question three times now. I’m an atheist in regards to other gods besides Yahweh. I actively and deliberately reject these gods hence “atheist” is the most fitting title. I do not simply “lack God-belief” but I possess a positive/active disbelief towards such gods. Were I debating their existence formally, I would share a burden of proof for my case.
It matters a great deal what subject we are discussing. If we were talking about some subject that my reasoning, experience, and current knowledge allows then I’d be agnostic. Suppose we were theorizing about some possible character named Jude Carson. I have no knowledge for or against him, no belief for or against him, and my experience and reasoning allow for both options so I would be “agnostic” towards whether he exists or is knowable. However “agnostic” would only be analogously used here since we are not talking about God-knowledge any more.
July 4th, 2009 at 2:15 pm
“I’m not sure what I’m missing here but I’ve answered this question three times now. I’m an atheist in regards to other gods besides Yahweh”
Yes, you’ve given that answer three times, and it’s not answering the question I asked. I didn’t say ‘other Gods’. I said ‘fairies’. Not other Gods, not another human. You already believe in one God, and you already know of other humans who exist. I’m asking you about fairies, or another non-God supernatural entity.
Do I now need to ask for a fifth time John? This is absurd.
July 4th, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Andrew,
Then I’ve answered that question too. I’m neither agnostic or atheistic or theistic towards faeries because they are not purported to be gods. Yet all the categories we are concerned with are pertain to God. Those categories do not fit, but I can use them analogously, which I did in prior answers. Since we are talking about atheism and agnosticism I was not quite sure why you include faeries in the discussion, I assumed, giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you are asking an analogical question. If we were not using these categories then I’d just plain be skeptical towards faeries, but using these categories, understood analogically, I’d be “atheistic” towards towards since my knowledge of the world and reality constitutes a minimal pool of evidence against the existence of faeries and therefore dignify a low grade “atheistic” position. If we were debating the existence of faeries I would share a burden of proof.
July 5th, 2009 at 3:17 am
You really think that if someone wanted to debate you on the existence of fairies, that you would share any burden of proof at all? Then I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. If you maintain that fairies probably don’t exist, I wouldn’t have thought there is any burden of proof on your position at all - it’s for those who are making the claims of their existence to provide evidence. You shouldn’t be asked to provide evidence that they don’t exist.
“Since we are talking about atheism and agnosticism I was not quite sure why you include faeries in the discussion, I assumed, giving you the benefit of the doubt, that you are asking an analogical question. ”
Well obviously I was. I was trying to work out whether your attitude to supernatural agents you don’t believe in was the same as mine. I said fairies/elves etc as comparing our attitudes to other Gods is pointless as we’re coming at it from a different direction. You reject other Gods by default, as they’re not your God. I don’t believe in Gods, so will be skeptical about any Gods you mention.
It would be like saying two men’s opinion on whether Elvis was murdered is the same, when in fact one of them says ‘Elvis had a heart attack, so he can’t have been murdered’, and the other one says ‘Elvis is still alive, so he can’t have been murdered’. For the first guy, he rules out other causes of death, because he believes he knows the true one. For the second guy, murder is just one thing in a big subset that he rejects as illogical.
July 5th, 2009 at 10:54 am
Andrew John is answering your question because it would contradict what he said in his article. He’s trapped himself with his own nonsense.
July 5th, 2009 at 11:48 am
John: So no I haven’t destroyed my own argument.
Answer: Yes you have.
July 5th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Christians like John and Frank Turek fear atheists. Since Christianity is based on faith and not knowledge, Christians are so unsure of the existence of their own God and in the stories of origins in their Bible since they are not scientifically supported by evidence, they feel extremely uneasy when atheists seem to have the answer. Many Christians attack atheists for not sharing their ideas by attacking logical scientific ideas in retaliation that their own ideas have no grounds. They do this because atheism challenges the shaky foundations of their Christian beliefs and their entire worldview.
John is frustrated and in fact quite desperate because his own beliefs don’t hold up under criticism or scrutiny and he knows it. He’s trying to even the playing field by redefining atheism so he can then have an argument against it. Since his arguments have all been refuted several times now we can all just sit back and be entertained while John twists in the wind and digs his own intellectual grave.
July 5th, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Andrew,
In answering your question I’m not saying that there is some probability level for the existence of faeries such that I have to overcome that and prove they don’t exist. I’m actually speaking with regard to conventional and traditional rhetoric rules, namely, the formal structuring of debates.
Anyone making a positive claim (”I think . . . ; “I know . . . ; “I believe . . . “) has their own respective burden of proof. This is not my rule, its just how debates/argumentation goes. With the case of faeries, obviously the case weighs heavily against their since the annuls of history record no such creatures and they do not even seem to be ficitonalizations of actual people. So its relatively safe for me to take the positive position that “I know faeries don’t exist” since the first line of evidence I can appeal to is that we have not philosophically or theologically, historically or otherwise or scientifically compelling evidence in their favor. My second line of argument could be something like, we have numerous discredited cases of purported “faery” events. And I could point to particular reports of faeries and argue by historiographic critical methods that these particular reports were either never intended to be taken literally or they discredit themselves on other grounds.
But if I just didn’t have the timer or energy for that involved a debate on such a petty side-topic I might just don a “non-position” (akin to agnosticism) so that I have no case to make and the faerie advocate has the entire burden of proof. In the structure of debates, the pro and the con positions generally indicate two contrary but equally positive (ie: affirming some state of affairs) claims, hence both have a burden of proof. But a “non” position, akin to agnosticism, is a sort of “no comment/5th amendment” position where the person abstains from offering a positive claim about reality but instead opts for critiquing the opponent’s argument. The tactical advantage is that there is less to prove, in fact, nothing to prove. The tactical disadvantage is that it does not amount to a positive case for the “con” position (such as, “No God exists). The case against the “con” position may be just as overwhelming, but the “non” position was instead occupied with critiquing only the “pro” position.
You seem to think that the plausibility of the subject at issue somehow determines who has the burden of proof. That only determines how burdensome one’s burden of proof may be. The burden of proof is determined ENTIRELY by whether or not they make a positive claim about something such as, “I believe Allah exists;” or “I reject the existence of any ‘faeries.”"
Permit me to demonstrate how this work with our friend Boris.
Boris is saying, unprovoked, that I fear atheists because my belief in God and the Bible is totally baseless. This is a positive claim. REGARDLESS OF WHETHER IT IS PLAUSIBLE OR NOT, he is making a positive claim about reality, stating what (he thinks) is really the case. Taken by itself it is merely an assertion, not an argument. As an assertion it carries the weight of an opinion, preference, or some other subjective impression of his. But if he were to enter into debate on the subject he would have his own respective burden of proof to make. I on the other hand can choose to refrain from comment, remain agnostic on the issue (analogically speaking), or just let him go first before I decide what position I’m going to take–and in all those ways I can avoid having the burden of proof even though Boris’ accusation is about me. Of course, once he’s made his argument I have the privilege of critiquing his argument, but I do not have to make my own independent argument or counterargument unless I myself step out a “no-comment” position and into a positive (ie: affirming) claim such as:, “[I affirm that] I am not afraid of atheists, God-belief is not baseless; and the Bible is credible.”
Boris, please bring an argument to the table with some evidence. Otherwise your statements come off as idle opinion making you look more angry than intellectual. You have heard my argument in this article for the classic definition of “atheist,” though I’m willing to use “anti-theist” in some contexts as long as people know I don’t mean it as a term of derision. I’m also open to the categories of “positive atheism” and “negative atheism” since I find both to be helpful distinctions. Now I would like to hear your counter-argument. Please stay on topic. And please argue your case providing evidence in your favor or counter-evidence against my case. Mere assertions do not equal arguments. And personal attacks and sweeping statements about Frank Turek and I do not amount to a pointed defeat of any of the arguments in this article. Rather it commits the errors of: Hasty Generalization, Non-Sequiror, Ad Hominem, and Genetic Fallacy.
July 5th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
If anyone is interested, check out an ongoing debate between myself and preacher Jerry McDonald on the resurrection. See: http://www.freeratio.org/showt.....ost5991331
Or: http://www.challenge2.org/coverres.pdf
The second round has been recently posted.
July 5th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
Hey,
My name is Jaylen Jones. I just wanted to say just how ridiculous this is. I mean, really. Mr. John Ferrer has a case with historical and logical evidence. Not only is he the only one with an article, he’s one Christian (now one of two) on this forum eating a barrage of intellectual commentary and queries with ease. Shouldn’t that say something? I’ve been reading entry after entry, and not once did I see any evidence to prove that God did not exist. By the way, if you guys don’t believe in God, why do you refer to Him as if He is a being? Shouldn’t He be some “thing” to you, or some “idea”, instead of a “He”? Frank and John have numerous articles oozing with in-your-face evidence that advocate and prove the existence of God. There’s actually more evidence that there is a God than that there isn’t; if this is a lie, I’m unaware, for I haven’t seen any legitimate evidence disproving the existence of Almighty God.
Anybody can sit at their computer at asinine times in the morning and verbally abuse an apologetic. When I see one of you three find sufficient evidence to support your claims, and when I see you guys post an article, and a good one, maybe you’ll be justified to spit your nonsense, no offense intended whatsoever (honestly, I speak in love). Until then, try and listen, and stop waiting to hear what you want to hear. Assertions don’t convince anybody, bros. They just make one look foolish and emotionally unstable. I say this with love: grow up fellas.
And another thing, if Frank and John feared atheists, would this site exist? This site exists because they love you guys, and because God loves you guys, even though you deny His very existence (which breaks His heart). We don’t fear you guys, we love you.
July 6th, 2009 at 9:23 am
“By the way, if you guys don’t believe in God, why do you refer to Him as if He is a being? Shouldn’t He be some “thing” to you, or some “idea”, instead of a “He”?”
Jaylen, perhaps it’s because we’re polite. Anyway, do you refer to Harry Potter as ‘he’, or a thing or an idea?
“And another thing, if Frank and John feared atheists, would this site exist?”
It’s a site that tells parents that if they send their children to universities then they should fear their children becoming atheists!
“for I haven’t seen any legitimate evidence disproving the existence of Almighty God.”
I haven’t seen any evidence disproving the existence of fairies, ghosts, elves, Allah, Baal etc. And neither have you.
“Anybody can sit at their computer at asinine times in the morning and verbally abuse an apologetic.”
I guess you’ve never heard of international time zones. Clue: I’m posting at GMT, not EST. From where I am you’re posting at 10:34pm, verbally abusing an atheist - I don’t see why yours is a morally superior position.
July 6th, 2009 at 10:05 am
Come on John. You said: “Please show your work in supporting the claim, “there really are no good Christian answers to atheism and you KNOW it”
I asked you to post these arguments so I could prove my case. You’re asking me to disprove your arguments when I haven’t even seen them. Let’s see your very BEST arguments against atheism. Post them and I will demonstrate just how ridiculous they are. Stop avoiding the inevitable John. Open mouth insert foot.
July 6th, 2009 at 10:10 am
>Frank and John have numerous articles oozing with in-your-face evidence that advocate and prove the existence of God.
Jaylen, let’s see what you consider good evidence for the existence of the Christian God and all his magical invisible friend and enemies. Do you Christians ever stop to think how much unbelievable baggage your absurd Bible God has with it? It isn’t God we can’t fathom, it’s all the goofy nonsense and absurd beings that supposedly exist according to your childish dogma that intelligent people don’t believe in. Wake up and smell the Godless 21rst century. No God exists.
July 6th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Boris, I don’t think you understand how this works. If you make an assertion (ie: positive claim) like, “there really are no good Christian answers to atheism and you KNOW it” then you carry a burden of proof so that your assertion can become more than a mere opinion or article of faith for you. I’m sure you mean that this assertion is true about reality, and I should agree with it. But since it stands now as a lonely assertion I have no compelling reason to believe you or consider you as a participant in this debate.
Also, you seem to think that this article as about theism. Were I arguing for the existence of God in this article then I would have that burden of proof to bear. But since my article concerns a historical understanding of the term “atheism” I don’t see how I am now required to defend theism on that basis in regards to this article.
As for my own claims, I have shown you my work and I stated it most exhaustively in the article. You are welcome to disagree point for point and mount your counterargument, but adding assertion upon assertion only shows that you are either unfamiliar with the process of logical argument or you are somehow too stubborn or unwilling to participate in it. Those seem to be the two logical options: you don’t know or you do know but don’t care. A third option, perhaps, is that you know I’m wrong in my general assessment of how logical argumentation and formal debate works, but again I’ll need to see your argument for that point and will not simply grant baseless assertions.
Andrew Ryan,
I got your message. it looks like there is a subtle disagreement here over “belief” and “knowledge.” True, agnosticism addresses knowledge specifically and theism and atheism tend to operate more in belief. The atheist has no God-belief and the theist has God-belief. However, when the atheist says, “I don’t believe in God” he is not just speaking about belief, he is also making a claim to probable knowledge. That is, he is uncertain but understands reality, sense and reason enough to draw the tentative conclusion that the claim “God exists” is unworthy of belief. He believes it is probably the case that God does not exist. Epistemologically speaking, this is a claim to probable knowledge. It would be confusing and unhelpful then to speak of “atheistic agnostic” and “theistic agnostic.” Sure we can USE agnostic in analogical senses to nuance a particularly defined brand of theism or atheism, but that is more likely to confuse us about what “agnosticism” is. It seems to me that many atheists and agnostics are confused about the historical and standard definitions for those very categories. If a word had to be joined to atheist/theist to communicate a vaguely “agnostic” disposition, I think skeptical is a much better term which has a recognized and historical overlap with both theism and agnosticm.
On a related note, I do however find myself using a three-part distinction of “pro” “con” and “non.” I don’t suggest this is standard terminology, though it may be for all I know. But I have found it helpful to speak of: pro-position, con-position, and non-position not unlike, ‘yay,’ ‘nay,” and “[abstention].” In regards to God belief that would be the theist, atheist and the non-theist. The non-theist category allows for all forms of agnosticism, apatheists (Dinesh D’souza’s term), and soft atheism. They have no particular God belief but nor are they necessarily excluding God belief either as we would expect from a “con” or “contrarian” position. I also use this categorization in regards to rationality: rationality would be the pro position (for example, A=A), irrationality is a contrary postion opposing rationality (such as A=~A), and non-rational would be outside of rationality but not necessary opposing rationality such as emotive statements or artistic expression (such as, A=makes me feel blue).
I hope that helps.
sincerely,
John
I say all that to say this, the idea of “atheist agnostic” and “theist agnostic” seems to confuse the term ‘agnostic’ entirely.
I asked you to post these arguments so I could prove my case. You’re asking me to disprove your arguments when I haven’t even seen them. Let’s see your very BEST arguments against atheism. Post them and I will demonstrate just how ridiculous they are. Stop avoiding the inevitable John. Open mouth insert foot.
July 6th, 2009 at 3:50 pm
JJ: “By the way, if you guys don’t believe in God, why do you refer to Him as if He is a being? Shouldn’t He be some “thing” to you, or some “idea”, instead of a “He”?”
AR: Jaylen, perhaps it’s because we’re polite. Anyway, do you refer to Harry Potter as â€he’, or a thing or an idea?
I wouldn’t waste your time; I think that was a drive-by….
July 6th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
John, you don’t like me using agnostic/atheist to describe other things one could believe in/disbelieve, but it’s hard to discuss the terms without recourse to analogy. I don’t buy your objection though - just take your definition of agnostic, and replace the word God with something else. “Knowledge of UFOs is impossible… ” etc.
“It would be confusing and unhelpful then to speak of “atheistic agnostic” and “theistic agnostic.”
I really don’t see why. I’ve already posted the explanation of those terms, so there’s not much point in posting it again. However, I don’t see why two people couldn’t both agree that knowlege of God’s existence is impossible, and yet one thinks there probably is a God, one thinks there probably isn’t. Hence agnostic theist, and agnostic athiest. I don’t think it’s possible to see whether ghosts or aliens exist, but I’m pretty sure the former don’t exist, whereas the latter quite probably do.
But we’ve both pretty much stated our positions now, not changed each other’s minds…
July 6th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Fellas,
I guess I’ve inserted myself into this squabble. Honestly, I hope to learn a lot about you guys and your ideals. In my opinion, it’s impossible to evangelize to somebody without knowing where they come from or their state of mind. Respectfully and lovingly, I will share and combat intellectually. I pray that I receive a warm welcome
Mr. Andrew Ryan, you said:
“Jaylen, perhaps it’s because we’re polite. Anyway, do you refer to Harry Potter as â€he’, or a thing or an idea?”
Respectfully sir, I don’t believe that it has anything to do with etiquette or politeness. Harry Potter, in a sense, is real. He is a fictional character created by an author. He, and God, however, are on two different spectrums. There are no claims that Harry Potter is a living being; it stands clear that Harry is not real. “Harry” is still a noun, therefore deserves a capital letter, although he is still a figment of an author’s imagination (I’m sorry, I don’t know the author’s name). God, however, has an extremely large backing in the claim of His existence. The Bible has stood the test of time for the past 7000 years, and is the source of truth that makes the most sense in regards to the origin of man and the facts of life. The author his/herself of the Harry Potter Chronicles would not hesitate to admit that “Harry Potter” is not real, and the only way he is real is in the imagination of the author and the reader. The authors of the books of the Bible, however, were 100% confident that they were ordained by a righteous God to write the words of each book. Harry Potter and God are totally different
You also said:
“It’s a site that tells parents that if they send their children to universities then they should fear their children becoming atheists!”
Really, bro? I truly failed to see the bulletin where Frank and John cry, “Don’t send you children to Universities!” The purpose of the site is merely to make the parents and strong Christians aware of the plight to lack of faith. I apologize, for I am absolutely positive that calling a lack of faith a “plight” has indeed offended you guys. It is absolutely never my intention to offend.
You also said:
“I haven’t seen any evidence disproving the existence of fairies, ghosts, elves, Allah, Baal etc. And neither have you.”
Bro, how do we jump to fairies, ghosts, elves, Allah, etc from God? I don’t profess in attacking the existence of these ridiculous phenomena, therefore I can’t tell you any evidence disproving them. I won’t apologize for not knowing everything. There is absolutely no evidence disproving God; however, there is evidence proving His existence. I really don’t understand how one can chose an assertion with no basis of support over a claim with so much support. Please, explain it to me.
You finally said:
“I guess you’ve never heard of international time zones. Clue: I’m posting at GMT, not EST. From where I am you’re posting at 10:34pm, verbally abusing an atheist - I don’t see why yours is a morally superior position.”
Haha, you’re pretty witty. Ha, yea bro, I have heard of international time zones. I’m just saying, in my view, the afternoon and night would be normal times to post blog comments. I was posting at 10:34 pm, and right after, I went to bed, as it was my bedtime. From where I was, you were posting at early AM times. Maybe that’s the usual for you; at that angle, I would be attacking you way of life, and for that I apologize. If that is so, please take no offense. If my words seem like verbal abuse, well, I don’t know what to say. That’s totally not what my intention was. I speak in love, not hate or ridicule. I love you guys, as I said before, just like Frank and John. That’s why I’m here.
Mr. Boris, you said the following:
“Jaylen, let’s see what you consider good evidence for the existence of the Christian God and all his magical invisible friend and enemies.”
First of all, I would like to say thank you for the invite. Honestly, I would love to share with you my beliefs. The fact of Creation, Morality (which you have definitely already heard), the physical truth of the Bible, and the statistical nightmare that would exist if everything just happened by chance. I apologize Boris, but my post is long enough to begin with, haha. Please, if you desire elaboration, push the topic. I would truly love to give response.
You also said:
“Do you Christians ever stop to think how much unbelievable baggage your absurd Bible God has with it?”
Yes sir! Many, many times. What always got to me was that all other theories made absolutely no sense; all but the Bible. The fact that the words thereof have stood the test of time must say something about its concrete nature, and of the truth that it holds. I can’t understand the theory of Evolution, of the Big Bang, or of any other atheistic theory. They have no foundation (I won’t apologize for that one, fellas). The Bible and God has testable explanation for life.
You also said:
“It isn’t God we can’t fathom, it’s all the goofy nonsense and absurd beings that supposedly exist according to your childish dogma that intelligent people don’t believe in.”
Tell me bro, what do “intelligent people” believe in? What is your “dogma”? How do you explain and prove everything? Christianity’s “goofy nonsense” has backing; sadly, your assertions don’t. If you can fathom God, then why are you a self-proclaimed atheist? Piece everything together in your mind. Piece Christianity’s evidence and atheism’s evidence and see who has the stronger case, my friend. Make a display of your alleged intelligence (this is a respectful challenge, not an offensive jeer).
You finally said:
“Wake up and smell the Godless 21rst century. No God exists.”
You’re right, this generation, for the intense majority, has abandoned God. That, however, should not rule out his existence. Just because the storm clouds cover the sky doesn’t mean that there is no sun. There are those who still represent the name of Christ to the best of their ability, and are standing in the face of vanity offensively without retreat or negotiation.
July 6th, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Tim,
He’s not wasting time. I don’t do drive-bys. It’s kinda cowardly, in my opinion. It’s in my nature to be upfront and firm in what I say, waiting for response. I’m absolutely positive that you know what a drive-by is. Needless to say, but will be said anyway, you don’t stick around for a response when you participate in a drive-by. It’s nice to meet you too, by the way! Looking forward to speaking with you in the future.
July 6th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
“God, however, has an extremely large backing in the claim of His existence.”
So do Vishnu, Ganesh and many other Gods that you reject.
“From where I was, you were posting at early AM times. Maybe that’s the usual for you”
And from where I was, it wasn’t early AM, because I’m in a different time zone to you.
“Really, bro? I truly failed to see the bulletin where Frank and John cry, “Don’t send you children to Universities!” ”
I didn’t say there was. You were saying they weren’t scared of atheists, I was pointing out that they were nevertheless very concerned about them.
And I love you too. And I neither think you are going to be tortured forever after you die, nor that you deserve to be.
July 6th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Andrew,
Good afternoon, friend! To the argument:.
You said:
“So do Vishnu, Ganesh and many other Gods that you reject.”
How much can these gods prove? Can they explain our lives? Can they teach us how to live? Do they have the confidence to tell the future? What are their claims? God, as in the Christian God, supersedes all other gods because He is able to do all of these things, and in a sensible way.
“And from where I was, it wasn’t early AM, because I’m in a different time zone to you.”
Haha, alright bro, it’s very clear, that at this point, I don’t understand time zones. My bad, hahaha.
You also said:
“I didn’t say there was. You were saying they weren’t scared of atheists, I was pointing out that they were nevertheless very concerned about them.”
Dude, you’re ignoring your assertion! You might as well have! They don’t fear atheists. Their concern lies at the silent onslaught of Atheism and the abandonment of faith after high school. However, this site is a buffer zone, for we understand that awareness will stifle an onslaught, and eventually, suppress it.
You finally said:
“And I love you too. And I neither think you are going to be tortured forever after you die, nor that you deserve to be.”
I do love you dude, sarcasm isn’t necessary. Understand what’s being said: If you don’t want the Kingdom of God, meaning you don’t want to serve Him, or even believe in Him on Earth, what makes you think that you deserve to enter His Kingdom? Or even justified? At that point, God doesn’t have a relationship with you, and thus He doesn’t know you. Our greatest acts of righteousness are like used tampons to Him, so we can’t earn a thing. Would you let someone you don’t know into your house to stay forever? I hope not. Now, the only place left for one to go is Hell, eternal separation from God, which, from what I see, is your desire, at this present time. Everything that is good is of God, so when separated from God, one is stuck with everything that is bad, which is Hell. Hell is not fun. Essentially, we all deserve Hell. There is nothing that we can ever do to earn Heaven. We just aren’t good enough, and that’s our fault. That’s why there is the Grace of God through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. He loves us bro.
July 6th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Bro, how do we jump to fairies, ghosts, elves, Allah, etc from God?
If you ask me, it involves the manner in which you claim to be able to know that god exists. There are accounts similar to the ones you cite as “evidence” (such as religious cult texts, myths, traditions, etc. “surviving the test of time,” which is not in any way a testament to their “truthfulness” or “reality” but rather their ability to adapt to strong cultures and survive modernization) that serve in favor of many other major world religions. The point of “jumping” to other similar examples is to show that the means by which you claim knowledge is flawed and that this can be demonstrated in other scenarios wherein the “knowledge” is acquired in a similar manner.
There is absolutely no evidence disproving God; however, there is evidence proving His existence.
That’s really more of an assertion than proof, wouldn’t you say? Care to back up this claim?
I really don’t understand how one can chose an assertion with no basis of support over a claim with so much support.
Well, for one it doesn’t help that the people who claim to have all of this “supporting evidence” choose to make their case based around claims that they have evidence instead of the actual evidence itself….
I speak in love, not hate or ridicule.
Problem is, you’re also somewhat Christian from what I gather, and I do not acknowledge their definition of “love.” According to certain other posters here, if god told you to kill one of us, that would be perfectly moral, just and “loving,” and so I’m forced to reject that definition.
Yes sir! Many, many times. What always got to me was that all other theories made absolutely no sense; all but the Bible. The fact that the words thereof have stood the test of time must say something about its concrete nature, and of the truth that it holds. I can’t understand the theory of Evolution, of the Big Bang, or of any other atheistic theory. They have no foundation (I won’t apologize for that one, fellas). The Bible and God has testable explanation for life.
Exhibit A: The Evangelical Theory of Rampant Assertion in action!
How do you explain and prove everything?
That’s exactly my problem, actually; Christianity claims to be able to understand anything and everything about the universe (except God); if there is something that’s not explained, and Christians see non-Christians latching onto that as a means of showing that Christianity doesn’t explain everything, they tend to make up some hair-brained explanation on the spot, such as Turek’s Comic Book Logic (exhibited in another topic) regarding god’s super powers.
Christianity’s “goofy nonsense” has backing; sadly, your assertions don’t.
Not like your assertions, right? Look, an assertion is an assertion.
Piece Christianity’s evidence and atheism’s evidence and see who has the stronger case, my friend.
Can’t speak for anyone else, but I already have, and as a result I am quite an atheist~
You’re right, this generation, for the intense majority, has abandoned God.
Another argumentative tactic: Purposeful Misrepresenation, plus Redefinition, both rolled into one! Nice. You’ve been practicing, haven’t you?
He’s not wasting time. I don’t do drive-bys.
Um, I was telling him not to waste his time….you clearly have nothing but assertions to throw around, no better than the people you criticize.
It’s in my nature to be upfront and firm in what I say, waiting for response.
And praise yourself soundly in the process?
Sorry if that sounds rude, but there is this old axiom I tend to live by: “The more a person speaks about him/herself — good, bad or otherwise — the greater the chance that he/she is either lying or putting on a show.” If you were really as straightforward, upright and firm as you claim (whatever that means), you wouldn’t need to constantly point it out, it would show in your case.
Needless to say, but will be said anyway, you don’t stick around for a response when you participate in a drive-by.
Well, your definition of “response” is rather liberal. You respond to someone else’s claims with more assertions, and then act as if you’ve made a point, then you back up and wait for someone to respond. But nothing’s been said.
I’m not trying to insult you, really, but are you honestly saying that you don’t see just the slightest tinge of hypocrisy to your accusations?
“So do Vishnu, Ganesh and many other Gods that you reject.”
How much can these gods prove? Can they explain our lives? Can they teach us how to live?
This is a cliche….hear me out before you freak, alright? I promise I’ll be brief.
God only explains our lives and our significance if we let him. Simply put….your god represents the ultimate order, right? He’s a god of structure, but ultimately (and more importantly), he’s a god of himself. Good, structure, order, righteousness, you define all of these things as synonymous with god. So anything we try to explain about this world, according to your definitions, always wraps around to god. Is YHVH a god of love? If so, he’s a god of himself; because god is love, right? If he’s a god of justice, then he’s also a god of himself, because god is justice, as well, according to the doctrines of your faith. So ultimately, he is his own definition, and we can either accept that definition, establish criteria around it and make decisions based on it — in which case our decisions will appear to be fulfilled based on those criteria, mostly because the criteria themselves were designed around the (believed) capabilities of YHVH — or, we can reject them, and find different criteria by which to judge our lives.
Call him justice, call him love, or call him something else….your god only matters if we let him matter. All of the means by which you seek to define him are subjective and conditional; “good” requires a premise of what is expected or desired, which requires human thought. “Love” requires a defintion of “long-term good,” which requires a definition of “good” to which we adhere loved ones to to the best of our ability. If we extend such ideas to objectivity (which is 100% necessary in order for your god to be truly finally “real,” according to Turek’s major case thus far), then they become meaningless; what do words like “good,” “loving” and “necessary” even mean, when there is no condition that makes it necessary?
Example: Why is the engine of your car necessary, if you don’t need to drive the car? Simple; it’s not. We wouldn’t say the engine is “objectively necessary,” we’d say it’s necessary based on the premise that you want to drive the car. The established condition is what makes it necessary.
So tell me, then, what about YHVH is “good?” How is he “objectively right?” Based on what criteria (outside of YHVH himself) do you establish this conclusion? If YHVH himself mandated this conclusion based on his own nature or whim, then that means it’s not objectively so; it’s simply a reflection of his subjective will (and yes, even if god really is the final real authority of existence, and there exists nothing in scope beyond him, his consciousness is still subjective, because it’s subjective to him; Christians have been arguing for centuries that we are not privy to god’s mind or consciousness, only to his actions….for if we were, then we would know the truth of his “mysterious ways”).
Now, to sum it all up….In order for YHVH to be finally, objectively good, that would mean that there exists a criteria beyond god himself to which he adheres. He cannot be both the standard and the judge of his own behavior, because that is a tautology, and I see little sense in the case that a god capable of creating logic would exist based on a tautological fallacy according to that same logic he supposedly created/is/whatever.
If you don’t want the Kingdom of God, meaning you don’t want to serve Him, or even believe in Him on Earth, what makes you think that you deserve to enter His Kingdom? Or even justified? At that point, God doesn’t have a relationship with you, and thus He doesn’t know you.
I don’t want or need a relationship with your personal god. I’ve having quite the time of my life without one, relying on my friends and family to provide me support (while doing the same in return as necessary) as I navigate the difficult decisions of my life. I’ve made my peace with the distant possibility that there actually exists such a thing as hell; if that’s the kind of world we live in, then I suppose I’m screwed anyway, because that’s not the kind of world I perceive and there is nothing I can do to change that. So I’m not worried
Essentially, we all deserve Hell.
So if god doesn’t give us what we deserve, how is he just? Justice is giving people what they deserve; killers and rapists and thieves go to hell because they have done actions deserving of it. In the Bible it says that even feeling hatred is a horrible sin worthy of hell. And yet we all feel anger or hatred at times. So we’re all deserving of hell, and if your god exists, then he is not a just god because he allows us to live. He does not give us what we deserve; that is not “gracious” or “loving,” it’s playing favorites and breaking the rules that he supposedly set.
July 6th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Tim,
You are a thinker, and that’s what I love about you bro. You make this conversation very intriguing. Let’s begin.
You said:
“If you ask me, it involves the manner in which you claim to be able to know that god exists. There are accounts similar to the ones you cite as “evidence” (such as religious cult texts, myths, traditions, etc. “surviving the test of time,” which is not in any way a testament to their “truthfulness” or “reality” but rather their ability to adapt to strong cultures and survive modernization) that serve in favor of many other major world religions.”
None of the other accounts have had their words manifest. The creation of Israel, the concept of sin’s price in death, the fall of our generation to iniquity are just three examples of prophecy that have come to pass based solely on biblical scripture. What other faith has the audacity to predict such events that would come to pass thousands of years in the future, and have them actually come true? So, yes “standing the test of time” is not a testament in itself. But when the words thereof form truth before one’s very eyes, the Bible becomes concrete. Yes, Christianity has been subject to moderation..in relation to holidays. Christmas and Easter (Resurrection Day). Doctrine has remained the same, and always will remain the same. It’s just been interpreted and, sadly, twisted in absurd fashions.
You also said:
“The point of “jumping” to other similar examples is to show that the means by which you claim knowledge is flawed and that this can be demonstrated in other scenarios wherein the “knowledge” is acquired in a similar manner.”
Bro, that’s guilt by association. Please show the flaws in our means in demonstrations regarding this present scenario. Congruent arguments aren’t the same argument. Thus, the case to destroy one argument won’t work to destroy the other.
You also said:
“That’s really more of an assertion than proof, wouldn’t you say? Care to back up this claim?”
Bro, I’m afraid that you don’t understand the fact that it’s already been backed up. I’m sure you saw the Turek v. Hitchens debate. Plus, I’m sure you read Frank’s book “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist” (of which, I have not yet finished, but it is fascinating), along with the numerous articles presented via this site and beyond. It would get repetitive, and as I can see, you’re an intelligent man. Seriously, I’m positive that you don’t need to hear the same thing twice. When assertions have proof, they no longer become assertions or claims, but rather facts. So, no, my friend, I would not call it an assertion.
Also in your words:
“Well, for one it doesn’t help that the people who claim to have all of this “supporting evidence” choose to make their case based around claims that they have evidence instead of the actual evidence itself….”
My friend, I don’t see where the supporting evidence is lacking. They have no claims from my point of view, for their “claims” were backed by evidence. I’ve seen the evidence from Christianity’s angle, presented in numerous articles presently on this site. I have yet to see evidence disproving the existence of God. It’s not balancing out.
You said this (the first ten words kinda made me chuckle, no offense):
“Problem is, you’re also somewhat Christian from what I gather, and I do not acknowledge their definition of “love.” According to certain other posters here, if god told you to kill one of us, that would be perfectly moral, just and “loving,” and so I’m forced to reject that definition.”
I am Christian, sir, thank you :). I hope you meant that in fun and love, not to be offensive. If the latter, oh well, I still love ya. I’m afraid that you’ve misinterpreted the Christian definition of love. Love is unconditional. God has an agape love for us all. Love is sacrificial. This is proven by the sacrifice of Christ, being the only innocent man to ever walk the planet, dying for the blood-stained guilty the is humanity. God would never tell one of us to kill an atheist; that would make no sense, for He wishes that none shall perish, and He wants to see you come back Home in to the Kingdom to be with Him. If He wanted you dead, He wouldn’t need to use us. You just wouldn’t wake up tomorrow morning. And yet you do, each and every morning, because God wants you to arise one day and notice Him. To let Him give you life in abundance and for you to serve Him (He’ll only command you to do things that will bless you). That’s Christianity’s definition of love bro.
You said:
“Exhibit A: The Evangelical Theory of Rampant Assertion in action!”
Haha, bro, that’s creative. In all seriousness, you’re a funny dude. Rude at times, but nonetheless funny. Rampant assertion? Ok. Creation - the extremely complex design that is natural, every natural cycle that is in existence, the human body itself. It would be a statistical nightmare that every function, body system, element, and organism would cooperate merely by chance without an Ultimate Creator to orchestrate.
Morality - you’ve definitely heard this before. Morality can’t be justified without a standard. Right and wrong are right and wrong based upon what is and what isn’t of God. Without God, truth would be relative, which we both know is not the case.
Concept of sin and death - Wages of sin is death. Crazy, right? And yet there have been multiple accounts of those that have lived lives of vanity, bashed/rejected God, and died not too long later, such as Marilyn Monroe and a philosopher, whose name starts with N. I don’t know his name, but I can tell you what he said: “God is dead”. He died in 1990. There are many more accounts of this. Now, this is not God killing people; this is the result of willful separation from God. It’s a deadly game, which doesn’t make it a game at all.
You said also:
“That’s exactly my problem, actually; Christianity claims to be able to understand anything and everything about the universe (except God); if there is something that’s not explained, and Christians see non-Christians latching onto that as a means of showing that Christianity doesn’t explain everything, they tend to make up some hair-brained explanation on the spot, such as Turek’s Comic Book Logic (exhibited in another topic) regarding god’s super powers.”
Bro, we are Christians, and we stand on the faith that mysteries that go beyond our understanding at times will be revealed unto us by the Holy Spirit. When we make up something, everyone knows it. Why? We can’t find legitimate proof or backing for support. My friend, you speak as if we are scared. We don’t need to be scared, because we have a Rock to stand on; we have no need of “latching”. And Turek’s Comic Book Logic isn’t “hair-brained”. Please, reread the Comic Book Logic.
You also said:
“Not like your assertions, right? Look, an assertion is an assertion.”
Like I said bro, I don’t do assertions.
You said:
“Another argumentative tactic: Purposeful Misrepresenation, plus Redefinition, both rolled into one! Nice. You’ve been practicing, haven’t you?”
Haha, like I said, funny, but rude. This is my first time on the forums in this fashion. I didn’t redefine a thing. Where are you getting this from?
I’ve got to finish this later. But I’ll pull back into this topic upon my return. Blessings fellas
July 6th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
The fact of Creation, Morality (which you have definitely already heard), the physical truth of the Bible, and the statistical nightmare that would exist if everything just happened by chance.
Boris says: Creation isn’t a fact it’s a religious fantasy that has been soundly scientifically. Morality has been explained scientifically, the Bible is not true physically or any other way, everything does happen by chance and statistics are human constructs.
Yes sir! Many, many times. What always got to me was that all other theories made absolutely no sense; all but the Bible. The fact that the words thereof have stood the test of time must say something about its concrete nature, and of the truth that it holds. I can’t understand the theory of Evolution, of the Big Bang, or of any other atheistic theory. They have no foundation (I won’t apologize for that one, fellas). The Bible and God has testable explanation for life.
Boris says: The Bible has not withstood the test of time. It has received harsh criticisms from intellectuals ever since it was voted on to be the Bible. Just because you can’t understand the Theory of Evolution or the Big Bang says nothing about their validity but only your own scientific imbecility. Every Christian college and university in the world that teaches science teaches these theories as fact. So calling them atheistic reflects the fact that you are totally unaware of this. Humiliating isn’t it? How is it that you admit you cannot understand these theories yet have the arrogance to claim they have no foundation? That is a combination of arrogance and ignorance that borders on insanity. The Bible’s claims have been tested and they failed miserably due to the lack of evidence required for them to be accurate.
Tell me bro, what do “intelligent people” believe in? What is your “dogma”? How do you explain and prove everything?
Boris says: Intelligent people don’t cling to beliefs nor do they adhere to dogma especially religious dogma. It isn’t my job to explain and prove things. I do just fine relying on critical analysis to make educated guesses about things.
Christianity’s “goofy nonsense” has backing; sadly, your assertions don’t.
Boris says: Are you kidding? My assertions have the backing of the scientific community and yours are in direct opposition to it. Your assertions are nothing but superstitions put in your head by other people and have the backing of a collection of nonsense that claims the earth is flat and never moves.
If you can fathom God, then why are you a self-proclaimed atheist?
Boris says: I’ll say it again. Your God has too much unbelievable baggage attached to it. There aren’t any such beings as angels, Satan, Jesus, demons, seraphs and the stories in the Bible are simply not true in any sense of the word. We can prove that. Therefore the Christian God cannot possible exist.
Piece everything together in your mind. Piece Christianity’s evidence and atheism’s evidence and see who has the stronger case, my friend. Make a display of your alleged intelligence (this is a respectful challenge, not an offensive jeer).
Boris says: I’ve already done that and obviously you haven’t. There isn’t any evidence for Christianity and the nonsense you have posted here to make your case is proof of that. If I had been considering Christianity your posts would have convinced me to reject it.
You’re right, this generation, for the intense majority, has abandoned God. That, however, should not rule out his existence. Just because the storm clouds cover the sky doesn’t mean that there is no sun. There are those who still represent the name of Christ to the best of their ability, and are standing in the face of vanity offensively without retreat or negotiation.
Boris says: Whether a God exists or not isn’t important. There are no verifiable consequences either way.
July 6th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Greeting again fellas,
Ima try and make this quick because I’ve got to go to bed.
Back to the remainder of the argument.
You said:
“Sorry if that sounds rude, but there is this old axiom I tend to live by: “The more a person speaks about him/herself — good, bad or otherwise — the greater the chance that he/she is either lying or putting on a show.” If you were really as straightforward, upright and firm as you claim (whatever that means), you wouldn’t need to constantly point it out, it would show in your case.”
Dude. Really. I’m not offended. What you seem to think is that I’m full of myself. I’m really not. Don’t attack me, attack my argument. “Constantly”? Dude, “constantly” insinuates that I made the fact known multiple times. I only told you guys that I was straightforward once (now twice). Come on, bro. Let’s get real.
You also said:
“I’m not trying to insult you, really, but are you honestly saying that you don’t see just the slightest tinge of hypocrisy to your accusations?”
Remember what was said about assertions becoming fact when adequate evidence is displayed? Here’s where it comes in. There’s no hypocrisy here, my friend.
You said:
“Call him justice, call him love, or call him something else….your god only matters if we let him matter. All of the means by which you seek to define him are subjective and conditional; “good” requires a premise of what is expected or desired, which requires human thought. “Love” requires a defintion of “long-term good,” which requires a definition of “good” to which we adhere loved ones to to the best of our ability. If we extend such ideas to objectivity (which is 100% necessary in order for your god to be truly finally “real,” according to Turek’s major case thus far), then they become meaningless; what do words like “good,” “loving” and “necessary” even mean, when there is no condition that makes it necessary?”
They obtain greater meaning because they are of Him. That’s what makes it necessary. You’ve done it yourself, proving why we need Him in our lives. He is all of those things. He matters, even if you don’t believe He matters, because we need those things of Him to enjoy the span of time we call life. I believe your definition of love is flawed and is a misinterpretation of Christian love (I’ve explained this priorly). We, as humans, are the condition that makes this necessary.
You also said:
“Example: Why is the engine of your car necessary, if you don’t need to drive the car? Simple; it’s not. We wouldn’t say the engine is “objectively necessary,” we’d say it’s necessary based on the premise that you want to drive the car. The established condition is what makes it necessary.”
Did you ever think upon the premise that one day, you’ll understand that you’ll actually need to drive the car? The engine is there in future, or even present, preparation for you. It’s absolutely “necessary” because the car needs to be operable. You never know when you’re going to need, or if you’re going to realize that you need it in time for it to serve it’s purpose. The “established condition” is you and I.
You said also:
“So tell me, then, what about YHVH is “good?” How is he “objectively right?” Based on what criteria (outside of YHVH himself) do you establish this conclusion?”
The mere fact that we sin against His name, deny His very existence, and live our lives in darkness, and still wake up each morning with breath in our bodies, is just one example of how “good” God is. You don’t even believe in Him!! And yet, He loves you so much as to wake you up. How else do humans wake up? (This is probably going to drive you guys insane) Chemicals?
You also said:
“If YHVH himself mandated this conclusion based on his own nature or whim, then that means it’s not objectively so; it’s simply a reflection of his subjective will (and yes, even if god really is the final real authority of existence, and there exists nothing in scope beyond him, his consciousness is still subjective, because it’s subjective to him; Christians have been arguing for centuries that we are not privy to god’s mind or consciousness, only to his actions….for if we were, then we would know the truth of his “mysterious ways”).”
Who can God be objective to? Who can He be biased toward? Himself? Aren’t you biased toward yourself when making personal decisions? This is HIS nature. Our standards are no match for His. Who else would God’s consciousness be subjective to? Us? Are we really that great of beings, that an infinite God would bow to His finite creation? I don’t think so bro. It makes no sense. We don’t know all of God’s thoughts and mysterious ways because we just don’t know how to handle His glory. I don’t know if we ever will. That’s why the Bible says that “My thoughts are not your thoughts, my ways not your ways”. We just aren’t capable of handling the glory until we are ready.
You said:
“Now, to sum it all up….In order for YHVH to be finally, objectively good, that would mean that there exists a criteria beyond god himself to which he adheres. He cannot be both the standard and the judge of his own behavior, because that is a tautology, and I see little sense in the case that a god capable of creating logic would exist based on a tautological fallacy according to that same logic he supposedly created/is/whatever.”
Wait right there, my friend. I believe that you’ve missed the point. God IS the criteria. You’re right, He can’t be both the standard and the judge of Himself; only because He doesn’t have to. Because He is the standard, He doesn’t have to judge Himself. He is OUR judge for OUR behavior. We are the ones on trial. You’re right again, your alleged anti-case does make little, if any, sense, at all. His logic is not based on any fallacy, for it has no fallacy, my friend.
Now, you said:
“I don’t want or need a relationship with your personal god. I’ve having quite the time of my life without one, relying on my friends and family to provide me support (while doing the same in return as necessary) as I navigate the difficult decisions of my life. I’ve made my peace with the distant possibility that there actually exists such a thing as hell; if that’s the kind of world we live in, then I suppose I’m screwed anyway, because that’s not the kind of world I perceive and there is nothing I can do to change that. So I’m not worried :)”
What happens when your friends turn their back on you? When your family pass away? Who then will you lean on? Who will be your hero? I really don’t believe that you understand or can even fathom Hell. I don’t expect you too, I believe you fear it too much (no offense, but in love). You do have a choice. You can choose not to be like the people in this world. You can choose to be different. You can choose to learn how to live life in abundance. You can choose. Reconsider the possibilities of your eternal destiny and the gravity of you present decisions, please.
Finally, you said:
“So if god doesn’t give us what we deserve, how is he just? Justice is giving people what they deserve; killers and rapists and thieves go to hell because they have done actions deserving of it. In the Bible it says that even feeling hatred is a horrible sin worthy of hell. And yet we all feel anger or hatred at times. So we’re all deserving of hell, and if your god exists, then he is not a just god because he allows us to live. He does not give us what we deserve; that is not “gracious” or “loving,” it’s playing favorites and breaking the rules that he supposedly set.”
That’s were love comes in. He loves us so much that, even though we sin against Him, break His law, and are deserving of death, He said, “No. I love my Creation too much to let them perish without a second chance.” He deployed His only son to earth on a rescue mission. As the only innocent man to ever walk the earth, He was justified to take on the sins of Mankind, as a scapegoat. Through a supernatural birth (we’re talking about God here), Jesus was born through a woman so that He would qualify as scapegoat according to the Law of Sin and Death. He led a life like a sheep to the slaughter, knowing that the world’s hate for His righteousness and truth would cause His death. He led the life. He was tried, whipped, and nailed to the form of a lower-cased T. He took all of the sins of Mankind upon Him, an innocent man, accused of blasphemy, taking the blame for all of the things he never did. He died. But then something happened. Satan had thought He’d won. But Jesus was sinless, and the wages of sin is death. Death had no real toll on Him, so thought he had died for the sins of the world, because Jesus was sinless, He was in position to defeat death. Walking through the depths of Hell, He took the Keys of Life from Satan. He rose from the dead three days after his death to signify the defeat of death. Now, our part is simple. Accept the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Live for Him, for He lived and died for us.
July 6th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
the concept of sin’s price in death, the fall of our generation to iniquity are just three examples of prophecy that have come to pass based solely on biblical scripture
The fall of our generation to iniquity? Who exactly are you using to judge the standard of “our generation?” Who speaks for us in your eyes? Secondly, do you mean to imply that this “iniquity” didn’t exist before? I don’t have much choice but to take issue with that if it is the case.
And “sin’s price in death” isn’t exactly accurate, either; what you call “sin” does sometimes have a hefty price, yes, but just as many times (if not moreso, depending on your region) it has very little consequence at all. I think people are too quick to point to a person who died horribly and try to justify their death by finding something wrong with them — especially on major news networks. If so much as a fleeting theory that, say, a gunman who shot up a school was involved with drugs or prostitution, for example, many people will simply accept it without question — “Oh, he was a murderer, so he must’ve been a sinner in other ways as well.” I think that sells short both the criminal and the victim, but that’s another story.
Our society is built such that we honor and respect sincerity and helpfulness, and we work against dishonesty. Because of that, we’re constantly barraged with images that bend our vision of reality such that good deeds appear to bring rewards (not always immediately, but the idea is still present in almost all teachings of morality that some kind of reward — be it good faith from others, or material goods — is in the works for those who do what society calls “good”), and bad deeds bring suffering. But from what I’ve seen in my lifetime, that is simply not always the case. I’d love for it to be the case, yes, but that doesn’t make it so; and so while I would still advise people to be honest and thoughtful, it would be dishonest of me to act as though honesty will always bring shiny happy wonderfulness. More often, truly honest people (who are honest for the sake of being honest, not because they want a reward or think it’s “objectively good” and god will like them if they do) are the victims of more persecution than dishonest people; people (both Christians and everyone else, I’ve seen everyone do it, and I myself have done it in the past) justify each other’s faults because they know they have their own, and it’s very hard to criticize someone else for doing something you think is “wrong” when you’re quite shy of perfect, yourself. And so dishonest people can actually relate to each other more than to honest people; dishonest people make each other feel validated, because they validate their own faults — “Hey, I’m not the only one with faults!” It doesn’t necessarily encourage them to be dishonest, it just says, “Yeah, we all have temptations, and we all succumb to them from time to time because we aren’t perfect and we don’t always have the right answer.”
For some good examples of dishonest people relating to one another, I’d like to quote you some sound bytes from our local newspaper regarding the Republican Senator (or was it Governor? I honestly didn’t follow the story closely because it was just a sex scandal) who was recently ousted for having an affair with an Argentinian woman….comments along the lines of, “We’re all human, we’ve all done it before, just move on already and get over it!” To which I can only silently reply, “But I’ve never done that…”
But when the words thereof form truth before one’s very eyes, the Bible becomes concrete.
Two things:
1) The things you’ve cited thus far (”generation decay,” formation of Israel and the consequence of “sin”) aren’t really solidly established. You have some room to believe those things, yes, but the circumstance hardly obligates me to conclude what you have concluded. I already explained the “consequence of sin” above, but as for the “decay of our generation,” I dare to say that humans have always been about as “bad” as they are now. However, our communication techniques are far more advanced than they had been up until very recently (just the last 10-20 years or so), and so we can observe a much more significant part of the population than we used to be able to. As such, it gets easier to “spy” on people, so to speak — find out what they do online, catch them in the act of doing something socially unacceptable, etc. etc.; it gets easier and easier to leave incriminating evidence behind. So whereas a murder may have gone unsolved some hundred years ago, nowadays it’s a lot less complicated to find leads and track down people. All the stuff’s on computer now, which makes running files ABSURDLY easier.
Point being, I don’t really think our generation has “slipped into iniquity;” rather, I think we’re just seeing the face of humanity that has, for all intents and purposes, been hidden for millenia by our simple inability to truly observe one another.
As for the other of these “prophecies,” the Israel thing; I’m no Biblical scholar, so I’ll keep this short — there’s such a thing as a self-fulfilling prophecy. If a group of people believe they are the “people chosen by god,” then I don’t doubt that their drive could establish a nation. That says more about their determination and belief to me than it does about the genuinity of scripture. Your claim here is a lot like saying, “The book told them to do it, and they did it!” That’s not really a prophecy, it’s more like an order (or something that a lot of people think is an order) being carried out. I dare say I might expect such results.
Bro, that’s guilt by association. Please show the flaws in our means in demonstrations regarding this present scenario. Congruent arguments aren’t the same argument. Thus, the case to destroy one argument won’t work to destroy the other.
He’s not destroying one argument to take down the other; it’s not the argument itself he’s refuting, it’s the method you use to make the argument. The argument itself is inherently flawed, then, if in fact the method is incorrect. As for any corrections to that particular case, it’s Andrew’s and not mine, and so I’ll let him speak for himself.
I’m sure you saw the Turek v. Hitchens debate.
I heard it, yes. And I lamented Hitchen’s “meh” performance, and I shouted at the computer the whole time Turek was spitting all of these easily-refutable, scientifically-laughable explanations. I kept saying, “Hitchens, why won’t you say this?” Or, “Hitchens, all you need to do is say that to show he’s wrong!” But he would never say what I was thinking, and so I got bummed.
My friend, I don’t see where the supporting evidence is lacking. They have no claims from my point of view, for their “claims” were backed by evidence.
That’s great that you think that, and it’s fine and well that you feel the need to keep repeating that you think you have evidence, but you have yet to actually cite anything. That’s what I’m saying. Saying “I’ve seen the evidence” is not evidence. It’s a claim. I’m asking what evidence you are talking about.
I am Christian, sir, thank you :). I hope you meant that in fun and love, not to be offensive.
I meant it to show my current understanding that your definition of “love” is vastly different than my own.
Love is unconditional. God has an agape love for us all (etc. etc.)
I’ve misinterpreted nothing. I understand the basic facade of the argument — the unconditional thing, the doing what’s best long term even if it doesn’t seem to work in the short term, all the philosophical stuff. I’m talking about the literal, hard situational definition of the word. If a Christian can call killing someone just because god told them to an act of “love,” then I cannot agree with their definition of love. Likewise, if they consider it an act of “love” to pass laws restricting the freedoms of others who do not share their religious beliefs based on their own religious beliefs, I cannot rightly acknowledge that definition, either. To me, one aspect of loving another is at least some degree of acknowledgement of that person’s own sense of goals and self-realization. Christian “love” completely ignores this aspect of relationships.
God would never tell one of us to kill an atheist; that would make no sense, for He wishes that none shall perish, and He wants to see you come back Home in to the Kingdom to be with Him.
I understand the point you’re trying to make, but what it amounts to is that this is a faith statement. You can’t know the mind of YHVH, and so you can’t know that he would never tell you to kill an atheist. For all you know, he’s already told many people to kill an atheist (I actually came across a court document a year or so ago depicting a case where exactly that appeared to have happened; the man even stood over the victim, after shooting him in the face with a shotgun, and when the police arrived they asked what he was doing, and he said, “Making sure he was dead.”).
It would be a statistical nightmare that every function, body system, element, and organism would cooperate merely by chance without an Ultimate Creator to orchestrate.
So what?
Morality - you’ve definitely heard this before. Morality can’t be justified without a standard. Right and wrong are right and wrong based upon what is and what isn’t of God. Without God, truth would be relative, which we both know is not the case.
Not true. Morality cannot be objectively justified without an objective standard. Unfortunately, even such a standard — assuming it existed — would be completely useless in the literal sense, simply because each person makes an individual choice to acknowledge that standard or to refuse to acknowledge it. And so even if there does exist such a standard, then it has no practical use; people will either be “good” because they want to, or be “bad” because they want to. It’s basically a cosmic/divine “suggestion.”
Secondly….what do you think it means for something to be “objectively moral?” How is that possible? “Moral” means “adhering to a code of ethics.” And a code of ethics is based on a reasonable premise. What you propose here is that there is a code of ethics that “just exists” independently of such a reason. Which, frankly, makes no sense. It’s like saying something is “objectively neat.” What does that mean? “Neat” is a word you use to describe your individual perception of something; even if you don’t say, “I think that’s neat,” and you just say, “That’s neat,” people still know what you mean — they still know that you’re stating your perspective. So what if you meant instead, “That is neat independently of my mind”? What would that mean? What is the consequences of this “neatness?”
And likewise, what is the consequence of this “goodness?” If it has a root in physical reality, then the standard is irrelevant because we can cite physics to make our case (and we don’t need magic laws). So what about this purely ethereal law causes consequence?
Concept of sin and death - Wages of sin is death. Crazy, right? And yet there have been multiple accounts of those that have lived lives of vanity, bashed/rejected God, and died not too long later, such as Marilyn Monroe and a philosopher, whose name starts with N. I don’t know his name, but I can tell you what he said: “God is dead”. He died in 1990.
I believe you refer to Friederic “God is dead and we killed him” Nietzche?
In any case, forgive me if I’m completely unable to see how his disbelief in god lead to his death. I can see a stack of anthill logic coming this way, so I’ll go ahead and get my kit ready just in case….
Now, this is not God killing people; this is the result of willful separation from God. It’s a deadly game, which doesn’t make it a game at all.
Okay, let’s say right now I say, “I’m gonna denounce god.” And I do it. Then I go about my daily routine, just like yesterday, and do what I normally do. What has changed about me that’s going to make me die sooner?
When we make up something, everyone knows it. Why? We can’t find legitimate proof or backing for support.
At least you can admit that much….
My friend, you speak as if we are scared. We don’t need to be scared, because we have a Rock to stand on; we have no need of “latching”. And Turek’s Comic Book Logic isn’t “hair-brained”. Please, reread the Comic Book Logic.
I’ve re-read it multiple times, as Turek actually tried to carry the debate to personal email. He misrepresented my case over and over again, completely ignoring the most pivotal facets of my case, and eventually I deemed the argument worthless and irrelevant and I ceased communication from that account. I am confident in what I say, and I am confident that Turek cannot answer it, because he hasn’t.
Like I said bro, I don’t do assertions.
From what I see, you do, and quite much at that.
Haha, like I said, funny, but rude. This is my first time on the forums in this fashion. I didn’t redefine a thing. Where are you getting this from?
My notes; I’m working on an Encyclopedia of Evangelical Argumentative Tactics — the tactics I often encounter in religious debates that people use to shift around a point that cannot be directly conquered by a number of means, usually either twisting the wording of the original question, completely ignoring it and pretending that another question was asked, or ignoring the intent of the question and playing a word-game with it.
There’s really no need to be offended; think of me as a scientist observing a study in action. I’m pointing it out for my own benefit and for no other reason.
July 6th, 2009 at 11:05 pm
John,
If you make an assertion (ie: positive claim) like, “there really are no good Christian answers to atheism and you KNOW it” then you carry a burden of proof so that your assertion can become more than a mere opinion or article of faith for you.
Boris says: I did make an assertion but it isn’t a positive claim it’s a negative one. Either you didn’t recognize that or you did but called it a positive claim so you could then say that I carry the burden of proof because you know I can’t prove a negative like this. A negative can be easily disproved though. Of course I can’t prove this statement but if it weren’t true you could disprove it. So we can safely say that on this particular blog there aren’t any, haven’t been any and aren’t going to be any Christian answers to atheism. Prove me wrong.
July 6th, 2009 at 11:11 pm
Remember what was said about assertions becoming fact when adequate evidence is displayed? Here’s where it comes in. There’s no hypocrisy here, my friend.
I tell you what: I’ll wait right here (I check in every day or two) while you go get some of that evidence.
They obtain greater meaning because they are of Him. That’s what makes it necessary.
So your answer is, “He’s necessary because he’s necessary?”
He matters, even if you don’t believe He matters, because we need those things of Him to enjoy the span of time we call life.
I don’t believe any of those things are god. I can see why you would treasure them, but I hardly think it’s necessary to actually personify them in order to enjoy them.
Did you ever think upon the premise that one day, you’ll understand that you’ll actually need to drive the car? The engine is there in future, or even present, preparation for you.
That doesn’t make it “objectively necessary.” That still means it’s only necessary if you want to drive the car. If you end up needing to drive the car, then it will become necessary for that purpose. But it’s still not “objectively necessary.”
You never know when you’re going to need, or if you’re going to realize that you need it in time for it to serve it’s purpose.
Again, faith statement. You don’t know if you’ll need anything or not. I might need this banana peel in a few minutes because a burglar might break into my house and I might need to throw it stealthily to the ground so he might trip on it and I might have a chance to get away or subdue him. But then again, I might not. And I can’t be prepared for every single possible situation. So I stick to what is immediately reasonable and I go with that. If something comes out of the blue, then it’s not unreasonable for me to have not seen it coming, and it’s hardly “wrong” of me to not be able to see the future in that sense.
The “established condition” is you and I.
So for the example of the car engine, I am understanding that your case is “the engine is objectively necessary because of you and I?”
I’ll take note of that if so, but I’ll tell you right now that it still makes no sense whatsoever to me.
The mere fact that we sin against His name, deny His very existence, and live our lives in darkness, and still wake up each morning with breath in our bodies, is just one example of how “good” God is.
That’s not good to me, it’s despicable. Why should god allow disgusting creatures that hate him to live? It’s unjust.
You don’t even believe in Him!! And yet, He loves you so much as to wake you up. How else do humans wake up? (This is probably going to drive you guys insane)
You’re right, but for the wrong reasons (about driving people insane, I mean…).
And you’re also right that I don’t believe in him.
However, if in fact humans are such evil creatures who live only to sin against YHVH, then I see no just reason for him to let them live. How is that any different from allowing a convicted pedophile to walk free? I mean, we’re just being “benevolent” in not giving him the fate he deserves, right? That’s mercy, and that’s good, according to what you’re saying.
Who can God be objective to? Who can He be biased toward? Himself?
So you begin to understand the conundrum. An ultimate being cannot be ultimate if he subjects to a standard….and yet he must subject to a standard in order to be ultimate.
Aren’t you biased toward yourself when making personal decisions?
If by that you mean, “do I consider myself when making personal decisions?” Yes, sometimes. Frequently.
Our standards are no match for His.
Why? Because it’s “bigger?”
Who else would God’s consciousness be subjective to? Us?
Us, any other living being with the capacity for consciousness, any other demon, god or lifeform with the capacity to judge someone else.
God’s consciousness would be like any other consciousness — limited to itself. If it were anything else then it would be infinite, which means it would encompass everything, and there would be nothing else except god’s consciousness. We know that’s not true because we know that other things exist — like you and I, and this universe. So his consciousness could not be infinite, it would have to be finite, restricted by a definition — a definition superior to god, that defines the limits of his thoughts. Which is impossible if god is, in fact, “god.”
Are we really that great of beings, that an infinite God would bow to His finite creation?
He wouldn’t have to “bow” to us for his consciousness to be subjective.
Let me phrase it this way; can you sense god’s thoughts? Do you know what he’s thinking right now? You believe he’s real, right? So can you hear his thoughts, his plans, his feelings, anything like that? Can you understand his will or his plan? If not, then that is the case; a subjective perspective is restricted to itself, accessible by no other. My perception is subjective because only I experience it; yours is the same. God’s perception would have to be subjective because only he would experience it. If we experienced god’s consciousness ourselves, then we would be god, now, wouldn’t we?
That’s why the Bible says that “My thoughts are not your thoughts, my ways not your ways”.
Exactly!
Wait right there, my friend. I believe that you’ve missed the point. God IS the criteria
That is completely impossible.
Because He is the standard, He doesn’t have to judge Himself.
Why do you believe that?
What happens when your friends turn their back on you? When your family pass away? Who then will you lean on? Who will be your hero?
I’m not worried. The memories of the times I have spent and the relationships I have forged will always be in my mind. I haven’t spent all this time for nothing; no matter what happens, my memory is all the proof I need that my life happened, and that I enjoyed the good times and survived the bad times (well, all except the very last bad time, whenever that will be~). And should my memory ever disappear, then I will have to seek a new life, won’t I?
There’s always a reason if you’re willing to look, my friend~
I don’t expect you too, I believe you fear it too much (no offense, but in love)
I comprehend Hell very well. Maybe not in the literal sense (because if it were to actually exist, there is no way I could know of it), but to communicate the sensation of Hell in comparison to our lives here, it’s easy — any time you suffer, for whatever reason, just imagine that this suffering doesn’t ever stop, and instead gets worse and worse and worse. And every time you suffer more, it gets added to the pile. Now gaze a bit into the future and see all of that suffering as it accumulates, never abating, never changing, only increasing and trying to bury you.
I realized something when I thought of it that way. Hell is everywhere, it’s wherever you make it. Hell is suffering, that’s all. It’s nothing to be afraid of. I need only fear Hell if I fear suffering, and I’ve realized that to fear suffering is to fear life itself….which I do not.
You can choose not to be like the people in this world. You can choose to be different. You can choose to learn how to live life in abundance. You can choose.
That’s almost exactly how I would phrase it, actually
That’s were love comes in. He loves us so much that, even though we sin against Him, break His law, and are deserving of death, He said, “No. I love my Creation too much to let them perish without a second chance.”
So he broke his own standard. That’s completely impossible. Either we deserve to die and god allows it, or we don’t and god doesn’t. We can’t deserve to die and yet be allowed by god.
July 6th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
P.S.
Maybe this will help…
If “we deserve to die” is an objective standard, then it is a fact. Period. Nothing changes that.
If god is an objective enforcer of such facts — and if he needn’t judge himself because he is never at odds with himself (as contradictory as that sounds) — then it follows that this rule will automatically be enforced.
And yet, you claim that god does not enforce this rule. Which means he is at odds with himself — the standard goes unenforced because the standard has chosen not to enforce itself. The rigidity of the standard is then undermined, and now it is completely meaningless and arbitrary because it can change at will.
July 6th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
Tim in your research for this “Encyclopedia of Evangelical Argumentative Tactics” do you find that most evangelical arguments are founded upon common logical fallacies? You know circular reasoning, ad hoc or post hoc ergo propter hoc type arguments.
July 7th, 2009 at 7:08 am
Tim in your research for this “Encyclopedia of Evangelical Argumentative Tactics” do you find that most evangelical arguments are founded upon common logical fallacies? You know circular reasoning, ad hoc or post hoc ergo propter hoc type arguments.
The term “common logical fallacies” might be close; I don’t know how much of it is intentional (I save claims of intentionality for specific cases like Purposeful Misinterpretation), but I find that the three most common tactics by far are:
1) Theory of Assertion (i.e. claim it enough times, with enough emotion/conviction/sarcasm/etc., and it will be true)
2) Purposeful Misinterpretation (misrepresenting a difficult question in such a way that it clearly does not mean what the asker intended)
3) Retroactive Justification (i.e. finding a source that you want to believe is credible, and because you agree with their position on a particular issue, you try to portray them as being reliable with complete indifference to the subject on which you agree; my favorite example is abortion. In a case where the mother wants to abort, a Christian will say that the father has a say in the process, perhaps moreso than the mother, and that the father has the right to override the mother’s decision to abort because he helped make the baby, too — they try to “retroactively justify” the father’s parental authority such that he naturally has the authority, and it’s more of a coincidence that they happen to agree with him. Whereas, if the father wants to abort the child, and the mother wants to keep, a Christian is much more likely to assert that the mother has those rights, moreso than the father, and then it’s portrayed as more of a coincidence that they agree with the mother’s position).
July 7th, 2009 at 7:46 am
Jaylen: “Hell is not fun. Essentially, we all deserve Hell.”
I have a daughter who turns one on Friday. She does not deserve hell. She is a beautiful, innocent little girl. If you think she deserves to be tortured forever, then you’re pretty sick.
“Mr. Andrew Ryan, you said: “Jaylen, perhaps it’s because we’re polite. Anyway, do you refer to Harry Potter as â€he’, or a thing or an idea?” Respectfully sir, I don’t believe that it has anything to do with etiquette or politeness. Harry Potter, in a sense, is real. He is a fictional character created by an author.”
You admit that you refer to fictional characters as ‘he’ or ’she’; either God is fictional or real, so either way one refers to ‘he’. You say that the difference is that some people believe in God, whereas we all know Potter is fictional. This makes no sense at all - you think that if EVERYONE believes a character is fiction I should say ‘Him’, but if some people believe the character is real, THAT means I should say ‘It’? Surely, if anything, it should be the other way round? No-one’s offended if I call Harry Potter ‘it’. You haven’t thought this through at all.
Jaylen: “Haha, alright bro, it’s very clear, that at this point, I don’t understand time zones. My bad, hahaha.”
Goodness me, Jaylen, you mean to tell me you’ve no concept that when it’s mid-day in one country, it isn’t mid-day in every other country in the world too? You think that when the sun is high in the sky in America it is also high in the sky in Australia at the same time? So how did you imagine that works out, given that the world is a sphere, not flat?
I’m sure you do in fact see ‘proof’ of God everywhere, Jaylen - your knowledge of basic science is obviously so poor that anything from a washing machine to a printing press would strike you as magic.
It occurs to me that you are quite young, hence you misunderstanding or missing the point of my other posts to you. I don’t mean to sound patronising but there’s not much point in further discussion if I have to explain the very basics of how the world works to you.
July 7th, 2009 at 10:25 am
Tim D.
Interesting. How about the Purposeful Misinterpretation of themselves? For example John Ferrer claimed he had studied ancient Greek. I blindsided him with a question that any first year Greek student would have answered but John didn’t know what I was talking about.
My strategy is usually to discredit my creationist debating opponent quickly by trapping them in a lie like I did John. This guy is telling us all what these words supposedly mean in ancient Greek when he really has no formal education on the subject. We all know now he has a reckless disregard for the truth AND a shallow understanding of the subject matter.
July 7th, 2009 at 10:46 am
“How about the Purposeful Misinterpretation of themselves?”
See also Jaylen’s “I understand international time zones…. OK, I have no understanding of international time zones.
July 7th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
The conversation has gotten a bit lengthy and involved so I’ve been letting you guys hash it out amongst yourselves. Thank you Jalen for joining in the conversation bro. It’s nice to have some respectful but intelligent banter, Bro.
Boris,
Watch what you say. You would not appreciate it if (or when) theists direct at you the kind of libelous slander you throw around at me. Weigh your words carefully, and combine them cautiously because every intellectual knows that sometimes we have to eat them later. The only people who are “never wrong” are people deluded about how “right” they are. So please guard against cavalier and dismissive attitudes.
In response, you indeed are making positive claims in that you are ASSERTING that reality IS some way and not another. “Positive claim” means nothing more than an assertion that something is true about reality. Examples include, “No God exists” “The Bible is fiction” or “Boris exists.” Unless you are merely emoting or grunting then you are making a claim of some sort and therefore have your own respective burden of proof.
So I repeat, bring an argument to the table, show us some evidence, and then we can talk. But if you are going to slander and assert with only the force of your emotions to back it up, and no evidence presented in your favor, then we have little reason to think what you are saying is true or to treat it as a scholarly contribution. So far you have not presented an argument to be critiqued. I don’t even need to say that your assertions are baseless, because lacking any demonstrated real-world base for your claims it would be like me faulting your emotions or your rhetoric. Give me something to work with and we can discuss. If you want to participate then you have to step into the ring, otherwise your words are like lazy heckling from the balcony.
Please demonstrate how you have trapped me in a lie. That is, show how you have identified in me a deliberate deception of some sort. You have asserted that much; but again idle claims like that are for your to prove, not for me to disprove. While tim and ryan disagree with me on several points, they are not even making the bold “lie” claim about me that you are. So you might be alone in making that argument–that is, if you are actually going to argue your case finally.
The closest thing to an argument I have seen from you is: “John Ferrer claimed he had studied ancient Greek. I blindsided him with a question that any first year Greek student would have answered but John didn’t know what I was talking about.”–I think you are talking about our back-and-forth on the alpha privative. First, you are in error when you say, “John didn’t know what I was talking about.” I do know what you are talking about, namely you are suggesting that the alpha privative means negation in the sense of absence and is translatable as “not” (for example, http://www.ntgreek.net/lesson22.htm). However, you have interpreted this “not” only in the sense of “absence of,” neglecting the fact that numerous dictionaries and lexicons confirm that the standard definition of the alpha privative is negation (primary meaning) and absence (secondary meaning). That is, you have interpreted the “not” in a softened sense of “lack of” as opposed to its more common sense of “un-” “opposed to,” rejection of.” Remember, that negations are also positive claims since they amount to statements about how something is the case. So even the negation sense of “a-” allows, if not entails, a claim about reality. Consequently, you have entirely overlooked the historic usage of the term atheos where a different connotation of “not” is used, namely, a positive negation (ie: positive atheism). Hence we have the common ancient usage of the term atheos as “godless” or more woodenly, “opposed to God/s.” I grant that the “absence” use of the alpha privative is one usage of the alpha privative, but it is the secondary usage, though the primary usage is instead how the term is used in classic, and medieval works. Moreover, the history of translation of “atheos” into “atheist” considers this fact, and up until the last century consistently represented the strong negation sense of “atheos.” And even despite the occasional “soft atheist” meaning introduced in more recent years, standard philosophic encyclopedias and dictionaries witness to the strong sense of atheism as the primary or standard meaning of “atheist.” You are welcome to go back and check and critique my sources on this, I list them at the bottom of my article so you do not think I’m speaking idly from my own inexperience in the subject.
Instead of proving me a liar, you have lied when you say, “this guy has no formal education in Greek.” I have had two years of graduate level Greek at Southern Evangelical Seminary including grammar, translation, exegesis, and textual criticism (2002-2004). Since then I have been doing my personal Bible study from the Greek New Testament. For that matter I have also studied Hebrew and Latin, both in graduate school, though neither of these with as much depth as Greek.
You suggest that I have “a reckless disregard for truth and a shallow understanding of the subject matter.” Though I have been discussing with atheists, like my own brother, for most of my life, have had one formal debate with an atheist, three panel discussions with atheists, several presentations and papers on the subject, countless personal and blog discussions with atheists, and considerable personal writing and reading in the subject matter–yet I still have only a shallow understanding of the subject matter? Your claim here is the general kind of claim that doesn’t leave me much to work with in refuting them. If my experience in discussing the notion leaves me still “shallow” in my understanding, then I am at a loss as to what would qualify me as “deep” in my understanding. I need details Boris. Show me in what specific ways I have done these things and I will either correct those errors in my scholarship or correct those errant claims about my scholarship. Had you said, “He deliberately ignores the the historical fact that Josephus, Tacitus, etc. use the term ‘atheos’ in the negative atheist sense”–that is a claim I can address. To the best of my knowledge it is wrong, but at least it is specific, and points to sources that are therefore testable. But when you make broad sweeping claims that are too general to specifically address it is a cheap way of making yourself look like a winner when in fact you haven’t even submitted a valid entry application. It seems like you want to win, but won’t risk losing. You want the crown, but without playing. A practical equivalent would be if I said, “Boris is not a great person; now prove me wrong.” That claim is too general, it does not specify what is meant by “great,” it does not offer a standard whereby “greatness” can be compared, it has no evidence offered in its favor, nor an argument to demonstrate why this conclusion is reasonable. Sure, you can start countering that claim with your own evidences, but it’s hardly worth the effort because the claim is so broad and unsupported, and smells like deliberate slander rather than scholarly informed conclusions, so it does not even carry the weight of a scholarly demonstration. You can safely sidestep that claim, not because it is a “non-claim” but because it has not shown itself scholarly enough to merit debate.
Please, I repeat again for the Nth time, please give us an argument that can contribute meaningfully to the discussion. At this point, I’m not even asking you to agree with me, just give me a good argument for your case. No one likes a troll or heckler, but unless you can contribute something scholarly to the discussion then that’s the role you are playing in this blog.
July 7th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Man, you guys really, really make this fun. But at times, you guys come across as really rude. It’s kinda unnecessary; forget “kinda”, it is unnecessary. Yeah, I don’t understand everything; I’m guessing you guys are in your late twenties, early thirties. Therefore, you guys have an established ethos with your life experience. You guys can prove me wrong on some things. However, you guys aren’t convincing me that I’m wrong about God’s existence. Andrew, you don’t have to teach me how the world works; I don’t understand how the entire world works, but I understand the essentials. And I love science! It’s really cool, one of my favorite subjects. I’m no major, but I understand the vast majority of technology. By the way, as of now, I do have an understanding of international time zones, thanks to you guys. It wasn’t the most gentle of learning experiences, but it was an experience none the less. I mean, come on. Don’t treat me like an idiot. You are right about one thing though; I am young. I’m 17 years old, and I’m about to enter my senior year. In fact, I can’t respond to you guys’ responses because I’ve got to get ready for a wrestling session. I do have a lot to say, though, which is why I’m here. Goodness, hahaha, I’ve probably just destroyed what little ethos I had by revealing my age in the first place. Oh well. I’m here to learn, and maybe shed some light on things to the best of my ability. I want you guys to know that sometimes, wisdom doesn’t discriminate by age. You know how you meet people that you don’t expect to learn anything from at all? I know, I’m probably exhibit A to you guys. Try to learn, bros. I’ll be back later to answer you guys’ rebuttal. I’ll only be answering for a few more times; this isn’t an extended stay. I’ll say, I’m gonna try and pour out everything I’ve got in my last few responses. And I’ll always remain a spectator; intellectuals battles are always a joyful experience to watch. Please do the same. Love you guys. Later
July 7th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
And then again, why would I put a demolition schedule on such a great learning experience. I think I’ll be here for a while fellas. Talk to you guys when I get back from training
July 7th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Interesting. How about the Purposeful Misinterpretation of themselves?
I see your point, but really, Purposeful Misinterpretation is directed more at arguments like the “Zeus argument:”
Non-Christian (NC): “Okay, try this; just pretend, for the duration of this statement and your subsequent response, that Zeus is the true god, not YHVH. Pretend that the Bible is just a fable, and that morality and all this does exist, but that it’s all attributed to Zeus instead, and the Greek Pantheon is actually real.”
Christian (C): “But the Bible says that Zeus isn’t the real god.”
NC: “I know, but in order to understand my point you have to look at it from a different angle. I’m challenging that very premise by asking this question. So what would you say if it turned out that Zeus was the real god, and that stuff in the Bible about other gods being demons/etc. in disguise is a bunch of hooey?”
C: “But it’s not, YHVH is the real god. The Bible says so.”
NC: “But what if it was, and the Bible was wrong?”
C: “But it’s not.”
A simpler version being:
NC: “Let’s pretend that your premise is possibly inaccurate for just a moment.”
C: “But it’s not.”
NC: “Alright, but let’s just *pretend* that it is, so you can see what I’m trying to say.”
C: “But it’s not incorrect.”
NC: “I can respect that you believe that, but in order to understand my point, you need to question the truth of that for a minute. Don’t discount it entirely, just open it to questioning.”
C: “But it’s not open to questioning.”
We call this “Purposeful Misinterpretation” because the point is clear; the argument is not whether or not Zeus is real; the argument concerns the ramifications which follow from the idea that Zeus is real. The argument presupposes that Zeus is real, and says, “IF Zeus is real, then this must be true.” If Zeus isn’t real, then great, but that doesn’t change the fact that IF he WAS, then this would have to be true — a conclusion from which we can draw other more useful conclusions and make more accurate examples. Zeus doesn’t actually have to be real at all for any part of this discussion to take place.
My strategy is usually to discredit my creationist debating opponent quickly by trapping them in a lie like I did John. This guy is telling us all what these words supposedly mean in ancient Greek when he really has no formal education on the subject. We all know now he has a reckless disregard for the truth AND a shallow understanding of the subject matter.
Well, I’m not going to approach the details of what you’ve said out of concern for brevity (I’ve already posted rather long-windedly as is), but as for what those words mean….I’m not entirely certain that he’s not being truthful. My concern isn’t so much with what the words mean….it’s that in my (admittedly short — just 2 or 3 years) time on the internet, I’ve very, very rarely come across an independently-thinking Christian Evangelist who has come up with his or her own points from scratch, based solely on conversations with atheists or information otherwise gleamed from contact with atheists, to oppose the thinking of such atheists. Rather, I have (damn near unanimously) encountered Evangelical Christians who link to other Evangelical Christians to support their arguments; they’ve pretty much all read it somewhere else. The rare counterexample is usually someone of some wealth or power, such as Mr. Turek or Mr. Craig Lane.
Basically, you must keep this in mind….when you argue with one Evangelical, you argue with all Evangelicals — not literally, but figuratively. The whole community of Evangelical thinkers is connected through the internet and literature, similar to atheist communities but in a much more closely-knit fashion; what I mean by this is, there tend to be a select few leaders around which most Evangelicals rally (such as Turek and Craig Lane), and most Evangelicals just take sides in an argument whose facets have already been worked out. Not many of them bother come up with their own beliefs.
Now going back to my original point….when you argue with one, you argue with many. So a lot of these “parrot” debaters will simply parrot things they’ve heard, such as rampant assertions that “the evidence is in favor of god,” or “god is real,” with no discussion of actual evidence — another tactic I refer to as “Discussion of Discussion,” which means to discuss the presence of evidence (or the discussion thereof) instead of the evidence itself — and even if you can theoretically come up with a perfect, soundly logical response that debunks the argument being made, the other side of the debate simply will not acknowledge your point, or even that you’ve made one. They will parrot the original point and assert “victory.” The key here is that each time any atheist comes up with a new argument, he/she must make it several times, to hundreds of people, and get others to make the same argument again and again against as many people as possible, until the Evangelical community at large is forced to acknowledge its presence. Then, and only then, will the major Evangelical thinkers (the wealthy and book-writing populous, such as the aforementioned Turek and Lane) acknowledge it and come up with a case against it. Which the Evangelical “parrot” figures will learn, and repeat.
Bottom line here: When you argue with parrots, you’re really arguing with the most powerful thinkers of Evangelism, just by proxy. The argument will eventually reach the place it needs to reach, as long as people refuse to simply allow it to be ignored.
Man, you guys really, really make this fun. But at times, you guys come across as really rude.
Who is “you guys?”
Yeah, I don’t understand everything; I’m guessing you guys are in your late twenties, early thirties
Actually, I just turned 21 last…ah, what was it? Sunday? I think it was. The 21st, anyway.
However, you guys aren’t convincing me that I’m wrong about God’s existence.
For what it’s worth, “deconverting” you was never my goal. Deconverting Christians is as fruitless a goal as converting atheists; it will never happen unanimously. Second, I trust people’s judgment to either help themselves survive and adapt, or die off because of their refusal to do so. I feel no need to intervene in that process on your behalf. Like I said before, I argue for the sake of gaining knowledge; this is not supposed to be a battlefield (as heated as it can get at times), it’s supposed to be more like a debate meeting or something 0.0 I wanna say “school,” but that’s not quite right because there is a two-way exchange of ideas, not one-way.
Goodness, hahaha, I’ve probably just destroyed what little ethos I had by revealing my age in the first place.
I’ll tell you what someone told me awhile back: “In the realm of ideas, age is meaningless.” It’s a good indicator from afar of what a person might be capable of, but it’s in no way a set-in-stone restriction on what a person is allowed to be at a certain age. There’s nothing stopping a teenager from being any more knowledgeable or resourceful than an adult except experience (and half of the wisdom of experience is an understanding of that experience, which doesn’t necessarily follow hand-in-hand).
If you’d care for my advice, it’d be that you should never let your age get in the way of self-confidence. If you believe you’re right then there’s nothing wrong with that, provided you’re being honest with yourself — if someone makes a case and says you can’t answer it, but you feel you can and you try anyway, you might just catch them off guard with your sharpness. But the same is true for the other way around; if you try to pretend certainty where you aren’t 100% certain, then you might be caught off-guard and appear foolish, which will hurt your cause. There’s nothing wrong with being honest about not understanding something. I’ve learned more in the past year from reading up on subjects on which Christians caught me off-guard than I’ve learned about life in the past 20 years, and yet I’m probably a stronger atheist now than I was a year ago.
July 7th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
P.S.
I also find an interesting coincidence in your frequent use of the term “Bro,” given that it’s my screen name on every major game/internet service I frequent; “Bro Ham(m)” is actually the full monty. Either that or “Dude Mar(r).”
July 7th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
Greetings again fellas.
First off, Tim:
You said:
“I’ll tell you what someone told me awhile back: “In the realm of ideas, age is meaningless.” It’s a good indicator from afar of what a person might be capable of, but it’s in no way a set-in-stone restriction on what a person is allowed to be at a certain age. There’s nothing stopping a teenager from being any more knowledgeable or resourceful than an adult except experience (and half of the wisdom of experience is an understanding of that experience, which doesn’t necessarily follow hand-in-hand).
If you’d care for my advice, it’d be that you should never let your age get in the way of self-confidence. If you believe you’re right then there’s nothing wrong with that, provided you’re being honest with yourself — if someone makes a case and says you can’t answer it, but you feel you can and you try anyway, you might just catch them off guard with your sharpness. But the same is true for the other way around; if you try to pretend certainty where you aren’t 100% certain, then you might be caught off-guard and appear foolish, which will hurt your cause. There’s nothing wrong with being honest about not understanding something. I’ve learned more in the past year from reading up on subjects on which Christians caught me off-guard than I’ve learned about life in the past 20 years, and yet I’m probably a stronger atheist now than I was a year ago.”
In a nutshell, you’re an awesome dude. You’re a very encouraging man, and I appreciate that. Very long ago, I had conquered my lack of self-confidence, but I honestly, seriously appreciate your concern. Although we fail to agree on many of the same things, you don’t fail to be a cool dude at times.
Now to the arguments presented.
Tim, you said:
“The fall of our generation to iniquity? Who exactly are you using to judge the standard of “our generation?” Who speaks for us in your eyes? Secondly, do you mean to imply that this “iniquity” didn’t exist before? I don’t have much choice but to take issue with that if it is the case.”
I am using God to judge the standard of our generation. Like I said, He’s the judge, and according to His law, biblical based, we have fallen short. In regards to who speaks for us, we do. But what excuse do we have? We commit acts of evil because we make conscious decisions to do so; what excuse could we possibly have? Yes, iniquity existed in past times. I’m saying that it has NEVER existed at such high levels as they do in these present times.
You also said:
“And “sin’s price in death” isn’t exactly accurate, either; what you call “sin” does sometimes have a hefty price, yes, but just as many times (if not moreso, depending on your region) it has very little consequence at all.”
There’s something called the Grace of God, or Mercy. Think of it like this: You live in a house made of dynamite. Sin starts and sets a fire to the wick. The wick runs down, ignites the dynamite, and your house explodes, incinerating you in the process. Now, that’s what would happen without the Grace of God. In this situation, the Grace of God would be a line of gunpowder with unknown length
July 7th, 2009 at 9:42 pm
My bad, I hit the comment button by accident. I’m not done yet.
July 7th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
Watch what you say. You would not appreciate it if (or when) theists direct at you the kind of libelous slander you throw around at me.
Boris says: Oh really? They do it all the time. Am I a sinner? Theists who don’t even know me tell me I am. How about you?
Weigh your words carefully, and combine them cautiously because every intellectual knows that sometimes we have to eat them later. The only people who are “never wrong” are people deluded about how “right” they are. So please guard against cavalier and dismissive attitudes.
Boris says: I’m not worried about being wrong about things because when I find out I am I’ve learned something new. So I look forward to discovering I’ve been wrong about things. Theists have a profound fear of being proved wrong by an infidel. They don’t want to ever hear, “Well if you’re wrong about THAT how do you know you’re not wrong about…”
In response, you indeed are making positive claims in that you are ASSERTING that reality IS some way and not another.
Boris says: Look who is talking. You’re the on who is saying reality is some other way not me.
“Positive claim” means nothing more than an assertion that something is true about reality. Examples include, “No God exists” “The Bible is fiction” or “Boris exists.” Unless you are merely emoting or grunting then you are making a claim of some sort and therefore have your own respective burden of proof.
Boris says: I’m not sure what it is exactly that you want me to prove.
So I repeat, bring an argument to the table, show us some evidence, and then we can talk.
Boris says: What would you have me do? Post a bunch of arguments against atheism and then refute them?
If you want to participate then you have to step into the ring, otherwise your words are like lazy heckling from the balcony.
Boris says: Heckling from the balcony can be the best part of the show. Obviously you’re not a Muppets fan.
Please demonstrate how you have trapped me in a lie. That is, show how you have identified in me a deliberate deception of some sort.
Boris says: You failed to answer a particular question that any Greek student would have answered. What caused me to ask the question though was a suspicion that you had never studied ancient Greek based on what you had said about it in your posts.
You have asserted that much; but again idle claims like that are for your to prove, not for me to disprove. While tim and ryan disagree with me on several points, they are not even making the bold “lie” claim about me that you are. So you might be alone in making that argument–that is, if you are actually going to argue your case finally.
Boris says: That’s because you haven’t misrepresented yourself to them. Perhaps you haven’t to me either but I have good reasons to think otherwise.
The closest thing to an argument I have seen from you is: “John Ferrer claimed he had studied ancient Greek. I blindsided him with a question that any first year Greek student would have answered but John didn’t know what I was talking about.”–I think you are talking about our back-and-forth on the alpha privative. First, you are in error when you say, “John didn’t know what I was talking about.” I do know what you are talking about, namely you are suggesting that the alpha privative means negation in the sense of absence and is translatable as “not”
Boris says: No that’s not what I asked you at all. I asked you what you could tell me about neuter plural nouns. Wanna try again?
Instead of proving me a liar, you have lied when you say, “this guy has no formal education in Greek.” I have had two years of graduate level Greek at Southern Evangelical Seminary including grammar, translation, exegesis, and textual criticism (2002-2004). Since then I have been doing my personal Bible study from the Greek New Testament. For that matter I have also studied Hebrew and Latin, both in graduate school, though neither of these with as much depth as Greek.
Boris says: I still think you would have answered my question knowing it would have satisfied my curiosity. It’s always better to demonstrate that you know what you’re talking about than just to say you do.
Though I have been discussing with atheists, like my own brother, for most of my life, have had one formal debate with an atheist, three panel discussions with atheists, several presentations and papers on the subject, countless personal and blog discussions with atheists, and considerable personal writing and reading in the subject matter–yet I still have only a shallow understanding of the subject matter?
Boris says: Yes and the fact that the atheists on this blog are all disagreeing with you on just about everything you’ve posted is proof of that. Why the obsession with atheism anyway?
Your claim here is the general kind of claim that doesn’t leave me much to work with in refuting them. If my experience in discussing the notion leaves me still “shallow” in my understanding, then I am at a loss as to what would qualify me as “deep” in my understanding. I need details Boris.
Boris says: Probably the only thing that would work for you would be actually becoming an atheist. It’s obvious that you don’t understand atheism or atheists. The atheists on this blog have made posts that are full of details illustrating your shallow understanding of the subject matter.
But when you make broad sweeping claims that are too general to specifically address it is a cheap way of making yourself look like a winner when in fact you haven’t even submitted a valid entry application. It seems like you want to win, but won’t risk losing.
Boris says: Oh please. I took what many people think are indefensible positions like anti-theism for one, giving up “The strategic advantage of donning a negative definition of atheism” and other advantages leaving myself open to clear refutations if you had any. Where are they? I left myself open to rebuttal on other issues too. What happened?
Please, I repeat again for the Nth time, please give us an argument that can contribute meaningfully to the discussion. At this point, I’m not even asking you to agree with me, just give me a good argument for your case. No one likes a troll or heckler, but unless you can contribute something scholarly to the discussion then that’s the role you are playing in this blog.
Boris says: Okay here’s an argument. John has no good arguments against atheism.
July 7th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
. Now, sins, instead of igniting the dynamite immediately, they ignite the powder. The running down of the powder symbolizing the time that you have to change one’s ways. Mercy is shown by the absence of immediate death. Yet, the sinful decisions one makes still keeps the powder burning. Eventually, the powder will reach the dynamite, and you will be destroyed. However, notice that one had time to change their ways, meaning getting out of the house, call Jesus the demo-expert to stop the burning powder, and hire a contractor ( also doubling as Jesus) to change the frame of your house (lifestyle) from dynamite to rock, bricks, plaster, or any other non-explosive matter. Just because one doesn’t die immediately after doing wrong doesn’t mean that there is no punishment. It just means that it has been mercifully postponed as an avenue for one to take preventative action.
You also said:
“I think people are too quick to point to a person who died horribly and try to justify their death by finding something wrong with them — especially on major news networks. If so much as a fleeting theory that, say, a gunman who shot up a school was involved with drugs or prostitution, for example, many people will simply accept it without question — “Oh, he was a murderer, so he must’ve been a sinner in other ways as well.” I think that sells short both the criminal and the victim, but that’s another story.”
You’re right. It would sell short the criminal. But that not what I’m talking about. I’m not saying that pinning multiple sins on one person is justified just because the culprit is guilty off one in particular. That’s just messed up. And not finding something wrong about them, but something that they allegedly or factually did. It’s ironic. Oh, and I really don’t understand the correlation of your scenario to your argument. Can you reiterate it for me, please?
You also said:
“Our society is built such that we honor and respect sincerity and helpfulness, and we work against dishonesty. Because of that, we’re constantly barraged with images that bend our vision of reality such that good deeds appear to bring rewards (not always immediately, but the idea is still present in almost all teachings of morality that some kind of reward — be it good faith from others, or material goods — is in the works for those who do what society calls “good”), and bad deeds bring suffering. But from what I’ve seen in my lifetime, that is simply not always the case. I’d love for it to be the case, yes, but that doesn’t make it so; and so while I would still advise people to be honest and thoughtful, it would be dishonest of me to act as though honesty will always bring shiny happy wonderfulness. More often, truly honest people (who are honest for the sake of being honest, not because they want a reward or think it’s “objectively good” and god will like them if they do) are the victims of more persecution than dishonest people; people (both Christians and everyone else, I’ve seen everyone do it, and I myself have done it in the past) justify each other’s faults because they know they have their own, and it’s very hard to criticize someone else for doing something you think is “wrong” when you’re quite shy of perfect, yourself. And so dishonest people can actually relate to each other more than to honest people; dishonest people make each other feel validated, because they validate their own faults — “Hey, I’m not the only one with faults!” It doesn’t necessarily encourage them to be dishonest, it just says, “Yeah, we all have temptations, and we all succumb to them from time to time because we aren’t perfect and we don’t always have the right answer.”
Please explain how this argument is in relation to anything that was said. It kinda confused me; I don’t get how the material presented is relevant. (and please don’t patronize upon explanation)
You said:
“The things you’ve cited thus far (”generation decay,” formation of Israel and the consequence of “sin”) aren’t really solidly established. You have some room to believe those things, yes, but the circumstance hardly obligates me to conclude what you have concluded. I already explained the “consequence of sin” above, but as for the “decay of our generation,” I dare to say that humans have always been about as “bad” as they are now. However, our communication techniques are far more advanced than they had been up until very recently (just the last 10-20 years or so), and so we can observe a much more significant part of the population than we used to be able to. As such, it gets easier to “spy” on people, so to speak — find out what they do online, catch them in the act of doing something socially unacceptable, etc. etc.; it gets easier and easier to leave incriminating evidence behind. So whereas a murder may have gone unsolved some hundred years ago, nowadays it’s a lot less complicated to find leads and track down people. All the stuff’s on computer now, which makes running files ABSURDLY easier.
Point being, I don’t really think our generation has “slipped into iniquity;” rather, I think we’re just seeing the face of humanity that has, for all intents and purposes, been hidden for millenia by our simple inability to truly observe one another.”
Let’s just stick with one example. Infanticide. Before Jesus’ birth, infanticide was just as rampant as gladiator spectator ship and cruel conquest. However, I highly, highly doubt that there were 4,000 recorded infanticide events per day in just one nation. Yes, I’m speaking of abortion in America alone. In regards to all other acts of “evil”, society’s law was so stringent that what we would call a “misdemeanor” in present time was punishable by either sure and violent death or the dismemberment of the limb used to commit the crime, but mostly in death. Even citizens stoned culprits amongst themselves upon the discovery that one committed a crime. These laws instilled fear and respect into residents in given empires, kingdoms, or nations. Hence, logically, there would be significantly less violent or “petty” crime. If there was as much petty crime back in those times as there is now, a very, very, very hefty part of the world’s population would not exist. There’s no way the present levels of iniquity are equivalent to that of ancient times.
You said:
“As for the other of these “prophecies,” the Israel thing; I’m no Biblical scholar, so I’ll keep this short — there’s such a thing as a self-fulfilling prophecy. If a group of people believe they are the “people chosen by god,” then I don’t doubt that their drive could establish a nation. That says more about their determination and belief to me than it does about the genuinity of scripture. Your claim here is a lot like saying, “The book told them to do it, and they did it!” That’s not really a prophecy, it’s more like an order (or something that a lot of people think is an order) being carried out. I dare say I might expect such results.”
Can their drive maintain a nation under seemingly impossible circumstances? The very day the nation of Israel was established, all six surrounding Middle Eastern nations declared war on Israel and simultaneously attacked small little Israel. I don’t care how much drive one has, normally, a nation as small and new as Israel doesn’t have a fool’s chance of lasting a day, not to mention 12 hours. Six nations, simultaneously; that’s insane odds. But, not only did Israel survive the onslaught, Israel did some work, sending all six nations on retreat with battle scars and tails between the legs. If a small, literally brand new nation like Israel can defeat six Middle Eastern powerful and established nations, shouldn’t that say something? If that isn’t prophecy fulfilled, then what is?
You said:
“He’s not destroying one argument to take down the other; it’s not the argument itself he’s refuting, it’s the method you use to make the argument. The argument itself is inherently flawed, then, if in fact the method is incorrect. As for any corrections to that particular case, it’s Andrew’s and not mine, and so I’ll let him speak for himself. ”
Some methods are compatible with the argument presented. Some arguments have only one concrete way of being addressed. Any other method would be unfitting for the argument being presented. We’re just trying to make sense.
You also said:
“heard it, yes. And I lamented Hitchen’s “meh” performance, and I shouted at the computer the whole time Turek was spitting all of these easily-refutable, scientifically-laughable explanations. I kept saying, “Hitchens, why won’t you say this?” Or, “Hitchens, all you need to do is say that to show he’s wrong!” But he would never say what I was thinking, and so I got bummed.”
I have an honest question: Have you, yourself, challenged Frank to a public debate? Do you think that you’re more qualified, or more of a challenge to Frank’s case, than Christopher?
You also said:
“That’s great that you think that, and it’s fine and well that you feel the need to keep repeating that you think you have evidence, but you have yet to actually cite anything. That’s what I’m saying. Saying “I’ve seen the evidence” is not evidence. It’s a claim. I’m asking what evidence you are talking about.”
If you would like me to copy and paste the articles written by Frank and John on this forum, or their books, or feeds of live debates, I’m afraid there is a problem. Respectfully bro, it would be an utter waste of both of our time to paste the articles, recite the books, and post links to these feeds. I refuse to annoy myself, and you, by repeating what has already been said, for all that needs to be said has already been said; therefore, there is no need for me to repeat it. The evidence I’m talking about has already been presented. Evidence has been presented; it just seems asinine to you. Please, revisit the articles, pick out the evidence in the articles and attack it to see if they hold up (I believe that they will, but that’s just me).
You also said:
“I’ve misinterpreted nothing. I understand the basic facade of the argument — the unconditional thing, the doing what’s best long term even if it doesn’t seem to work in the short term, all the philosophical stuff. I’m talking about the literal, hard situational definition of the word. If a Christian can call killing someone just because god told them to an act of “love,” then I cannot agree with their definition of love. Likewise, if they consider it an act of “love” to pass laws restricting the freedoms of others who do not share their religious beliefs based on their own religious beliefs, I cannot rightly acknowledge that definition, either. To me, one aspect of loving another is at least some degree of acknowledgement of that person’s own sense of goals and self-realization. Christian “love” completely ignores this aspect of relationships.”
Alright bro, I’m beat (physically, I mean. Wrestling was pretty hard today); this will remain on my list to discuss. But I just have to get my rest, and it’s already late. I would really love to continue, but it’ll just have to wait for tomorrow. Trust me, the finish will be on my list of things to do. I think I’m in about…..hmm…..the middle of my rebuttal? Yea, about that. I’ll speak to you guys later. May the Grace of God keep you until then, bros. See ya
July 8th, 2009 at 6:56 am
Now, sins, instead of igniting the dynamite immediately, they ignite the powder. The running down of the powder symbolizing the time that you have to change one’s ways. Mercy is shown by the absence of immediate death. Yet, the sinful decisions one makes still keeps the powder burning. Eventually, the powder will reach the dynamite, and you will be destroyed. However, notice that one had time to change their ways, meaning getting out of the house, call Jesus the demo-expert to stop the burning powder, and hire a contractor ( also doubling as Jesus) to change the frame of your house (lifestyle) from dynamite to rock, bricks, plaster, or any other non-explosive matter. Just because one doesn’t die immediately after doing wrong doesn’t mean that there is no punishment. It just means that it has been mercifully postponed as an avenue for one to take preventative action.
That’s a fine metaphor and all, but it’s not really a case. A metaphor illustrates a point that has already been proven; it doesn’t prove it.
You’re right. It would sell short the criminal. But that not what I’m talking about. I’m not saying that pinning multiple sins on one person is justified just because the culprit is guilty off one in particular. That’s just messed up. And not finding something wrong about them, but something that they allegedly or factually did. It’s ironic. Oh, and I really don’t understand the correlation of your scenario to your argument. Can you reiterate it for me, please?
What I’m saying is, it tends to be very easy for people to just accept that the reason a person died is because of “sin.” When the person who died or suddenly snapped was not living a “life of sin;” they may not have drunk, they may not have ever even thought of committing a crime until one day the stress in their lives peaked and they lost control. They may have been victims of “sin” themselves, in fact. This is an instance of what I call “Retroactive Justification,” wherein we see a figure portrayed in the media (such as a school shooter or a young terrorist) and we proceed to label him/her with the behaviors that we think a person like that would probably have — “They’re a killer, so they probably do other ‘bad’ stuff, too!” We’re ready to think whatever we need to think about the person so that they correlate with our worldview, whether or not it’s correct. And I see a problem with that.
Please explain how this argument is in relation to anything that was said. It kinda confused me; I don’t get how the material presented is relevant. (and please don’t patronize upon explanation)
1) It’s easier to find people “doing wrong” now than we used to because we have more access to technology and other means that allow us to observe each other (this could provide somewhat of an illusion that there is “more iniquity” than there used to be — think of it like this, more reported rapes in a year don’t necessarily mean that more rapes occurred).
2) Christians talk a lot about old societies and how they were much better than our current societies. I dismiss this argument on the basis that the criteria you use to judge these old societies — how closely they adhere to Biblical law — is quite subjective indeed, and by those same criteria I don’t think they were very good societies at all. A society where the people are relied upon to publicily lynch petty criminals without a fair trial is not a good society to me. I believe that due process is necessary to keep people from abusing their power over the system; if we allowed people to lynch petty criminals in the streets today, all it would take was one alleged false accusation of a petty crime to start a chain of mass chaos — it would start with people falsely accusing one another for personal gain, and then when people started getting lynched for things they didn’t do, other people would respond with fear and retaliation. I just don’t believe that such a system is acceptable.
3) What you’ve said creates the illusion that good deeds follow good deeds always, and bad deeds follow bad deeds always. The truth of my life is that such deeds are in fact not consequential; they can be sometimes, but it’s due to the actions of other people, not due to natural parameters of the universe. If there were no other people, then stealing couldn’t be punished by death, see? And sometimes a person isn’t caught for doing something that society calls “wrong,” and they get away with it, and they are never made to face the justice system. Sometimes people who do good work are murdered for petty reasons, and they never have to answer for their crimes. Sometimes people who do good work are never recognized and continue to live in poverty in misfortune their whole lives. This is just the way things have always unfolded.
So basically, my point here is that your claim of “good —> good” and “bad —-> bad” is not necessarily true. Sin does not always result in death unless another person makes that person forcibly accountable for his/her deeds….which is not exemplary of an objective system of morals. Rather, it’s exemplary of a subjective society of morals that relies upon collected ideas to help enforce agreed-upon standards.
Let’s just stick with one example. Infanticide. Before Jesus’ birth, infanticide was just as rampant as gladiator spectator ship and cruel conquest. However, I highly, highly doubt that there were 4,000 recorded infanticide events per day in just one nation. Yes, I’m speaking of abortion in America
And on that we’ll just have to agree to disagree, I guess. I don’t consider abortion “infanticide.”
Did you know that sometimes fetuses are formed without complete heads? They’re already dead in the womb, even several months into the pregnancy. Dead/decaying tissue in the womb can cause infection or worse.
Did you know that some babies reach full term without hearts or lungs? Severe deformities like that make it so that no amount of invasive surgery can save it. It will die.
The reason I mention these particular cases is because I wanted to ask if you would consider either of them to be “infanticide.” I think the picture of the Beverly Hills 90210 girl who goes out to get an abortion “just because,” on a whim, is a load of bull**** manufactured by a media misrepresentation of our culture that too many people just blindly accept.
Six nations, simultaneously; that’s insane odds. But, not only did Israel survive the onslaught, Israel did some work, sending all six nations on retreat with battle scars and tails between the legs. If a small, literally brand new nation like Israel can defeat six Middle Eastern powerful and established nations, shouldn’t that say something? If that isn’t prophecy fulfilled, then what is?
I’d like to tell you a story about a little fledgling nation called “America,” circa 1776….
Some methods are compatible with the argument presented. Some arguments have only one concrete way of being addressed. Any other method would be unfitting for the argument being presented. We’re just trying to make sense.
If the method is flawed, and yet it’s the only way to present your argument, then it follows that your argument is flawed.
I have an honest question: Have you, yourself, challenged Frank to a public debate? Do you think that you’re more qualified, or more of a challenge to Frank’s case, than Christopher?
I haven’t challenged him. And no, I don’t think I would be a better challenge because I’m not as educated as Chris. But I’ve heard a lot of his other work and I know for a fact that he had answers to some of those questions that he just, for whatever dumb reason, didn’t give. I was irritated. It’s like losing a game with an ace in your pocket.
The evidence I’m talking about has already been presented. Evidence has been presented; it just seems asinine to you. Please, revisit the articles, pick out the evidence in the articles and attack it to see if they hold up (I believe that they will, but that’s just me).
Oh, that’s it? That’s all you meant? Okay, I had the understanding that you were talking about something completely new.
Alright bro, I’m beat (physically, I mean. Wrestling was pretty hard today); this will remain on my list to discuss. But I just have to get my rest, and it’s already late. I would really love to continue, but it’ll just have to wait for tomorrow. Trust me, the finish will be on my list of things to do. I think I’m in about…..hmm…..the middle of my rebuttal? Yea, about that. I’ll speak to you guys later. May the Grace of God keep you until then, bros. See ya
Take your time~
July 8th, 2009 at 8:30 am
Jaylen: “However, you guys aren’t convincing me that I’m wrong about God’s existence.”
I wouldn’t dream of trying to, Jaylen. And why do you think I was being sarcastic? I wasn’t, and express myself with utmost sincerity. And there’s no problem with being young, and obviously being older is no guarantee you’ll be right about things. If you try to call rank in an argument due to your age, someone older’s just going to come along! Remember the story in the bible about the young Jesus astounding the temple teachers with his debating chops?
So I wasn’t trying to be rude, or talk you out of your faith. It was you telling me that MY position was untenable, not the other way round. If you’ve had personal experiences that convince you of God’s existence, then I can’t argue with that. But I haven’t had those experiences, and, respectfully I’m unconvinced by the arguments offered by Frank here and in his book.
The arguments from design were dealt with by David Hume hundreds of years ago, the argument from morality was dealt with by Plato thousands of years before that. While I’m impressed by attempts to duel with these two titans, for me these dead men still come up the victor.
July 8th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Andrew:So do Vishnu, Ganesh and many other Gods that you reject.”
Jaylen: How much can these gods prove? Can they explain our lives? Can they teach us how to live?
If these gods do nothing to explain our lives, why do you think people continue to believe in them? (Many have been believed longer than the G-d of Christianity.)
Why do you think the Greeks and Romans invented all of those gods, for example? I haven’t studied the issue, but it seems to me that the ability to explain the world was a strong motivation for many of these stories.
Tim:The things you’ve cited thus far (”generation decay,” formation of Israel and the consequence of “sin”) aren’t really solidly established. You have some room to believe those things, yes, but the circumstance hardly obligates me to conclude what you have concluded
Isn’t there really room to believe in G-d on all issues? From creation to suffering in the world — these things can be explained without G-d (in the sense that one can say: this explanation satisfies me), but can also be explained with G-d.
Jaylen: I’m saying that [iniquity] has NEVER existed at such high levels as they do in these present times.
What data are you relying on to support this claim?
I’ve previously posted various statistics about crime levels; the murder rate is far lower than it was when this country was formed, rape is at the lowest level since statistics have been kept by the government, etc.
Sometimes I stop and think, and I am blown away by the fact that 50 years ago many people in the United States thought it was quite fine to force people to drink from a different water fountain because of the color of their skin.
This is the type of thing that makes 99.9% of our generation sick, but this terrible iniquity was generally accepted not so long ago.
Those are just some of the reasons I am asking for the basis of your claim.
Thanks
July 8th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Isn’t there really room to believe in G-d on all issues? From creation to suffering in the world — these things can be explained without G-d (in the sense that one can say: this explanation satisfies me), but can also be explained with G-d.
That’s pretty much exactly what I meant, yes.
July 9th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Good afternoon fellas!
How are you guys doing? Now going back to the remainder of my argument:
You said:
“I’ve misinterpreted nothing. I understand the basic facade of the argument — the unconditional thing, the doing what’s best long term even if it doesn’t seem to work in the short term, all the philosophical stuff. I’m talking about the literal, hard situational definition of the word. If a Christian can call killing someone just because god told them to an act of “love,” then I cannot agree with their definition of love. Likewise, if they consider it an act of “love” to pass laws restricting the freedoms of others who do not share their religious beliefs based on their own religious beliefs, I cannot rightly acknowledge that definition, either. To me, one aspect of loving another is at least some degree of acknowledgement of that person’s own sense of goals and self-realization. Christian “love” completely ignores this aspect of relationships.”
This is the literal, my friend. I don’t know what kind of God those other Christians say they serve. My God, for one, would never ask a Christian to murder an un-believer as a “just act of love”. That’s just not in his nature. The only case that I know of Abraham and Isaac. Now, they were both believers; Abraham raised Isaac to serve Yahweh. God came to Abraham and commanded him to offer up his son as a sacrifice. Abraham was crazy scared and confused, but he was willing to comply. He brought his son up the mountain, tied him to the altar, and raised the knife above his son, ready to kill Isaac. However, God sent an angel to Abraham on the mountain just in time to tell him that his faith and trust in God has been accounted for. A ram was also provided for the sacrifice, struggling in the bushes. God never intended to allow Abraham to kill his son; it was a test of faith. Next, God would never force faith upon a person, neither through legislation or any other means. And if it is, then Christianity is being twisted. Christianity is a choice, because love is based on free-will. You have a choice to love someone when they love you. God and Jesus do in fact love you, and I would think it fair, due to his sacrifice for you, that one love him back. You don’t believe in his existence (which can change one day, if you so choose), but He certainly believes in you.
You said:
“You can’t know the mind of YHVH, and so you can’t know that he would never tell you to kill an atheist. For all you know, he’s already told many people to kill an atheist (I actually came across a court document a year or so ago depicting a case where exactly that appeared to have happened; the man even stood over the victim, after shooting him in the face with a shotgun, and when the police arrived they asked what he was doing, and he said, “Making sure he was dead.”).”
You can in fact know the mind of God, but only what He is willing to reveal to accommodate our current capacity of understanding as humans. Based upon biblical scripture, He is described as just, loving, and overall, merciful to a very large extent. Those who say that they are fulfilling the will of God by, say, killing atheists or abortionists, and according to scripture, have entirely twisted the essence of God totally out of context. God is not some mob boss who orders hits on those that don’t serve him. He gives everyone choice to either serve him and live life the way it’s meant to be, or he, to his dismay, gives one what they “want”, and allows them to live life on an inevitable path to destruction in vanity.
You also said:
“So what?”
Dude, that math is crazy. Statistics give a sense of probability that a certain event would actually happen. If the statistics are nightmarish, what do you think the probability is in regards to the chance of occurrence is? I don’t think so much math is possible to do, and if it is, I’ll be thoroughly impressed. However, it, the argument, still stands in the fact that it would be impossible for these impossible events to occur simultaneously for an entire human lifetime, when we consider how many thoughts we make in just five minutes, how many red blood cells we produce in just 5 minutes, and the ceaseless cooperation of billions of neurons to one purpose. There has to be a Master when looking at the masterpiece that is life.
You said:
“Not true. Morality cannot be objectively justified without an objective standard. Unfortunately, even such a standard — assuming it existed — would be completely useless in the literal sense, simply because each person makes an individual choice to acknowledge that standard or to refuse to acknowledge it. And so even if there does exist such a standard, then it has no practical use; people will either be “good” because they want to, or be “bad” because they want to. It’s basically a cosmic/divine “suggestion.””
That’s like saying that my little brother doesn’t exist because I’m not talking to him. The fact that one does not adhere to morality doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist. The repercussions of doing wrong still exist. Whether we choose to acknowledge them or not. It’s not a suggestion, but we can choose to obey or not. We just have to be willing to accept the consequences for disobedience. And if we do fully understand the consequences, and we still desire to be immoral, and we want to, then one has kinda made their decision and there really isn’t any chance for them. Unless they have a miraculous change of heart and they understand that life can be better.
I’ve got to go right now, my little brother is begging me to get on. So, I’m gonna leave this one here until later, and yes, I’ll take all the time I desire
See you guys later. Blessings 
July 9th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Next, God would never force faith upon a person, neither through legislation or any other means. And if it is, then Christianity is being twisted. Christianity is a choice, because love is based on free-will. You have a choice to love someone when they love you.
You don’t seem to understand why people desire to legislate Christianity. It’s not a matter of forcing people to believe one way or the other, per se, but rather of forcing one group of people’s moral beliefs upon the masses. Example; gay marriage. Turek himself is against legislation that would allow gay marriage because he thinks it’s immoral, and he thinks that other people should be required to adhere to his definition of morality because his morality isn’t actually his, it belongs to someone else and he’s borrowing it.
o_-
Turek and I have argued this point into a corner, so I won’t re-repeat my case again for concern of brevity….but I will say this; people have different ideas of what is moral, even people who believe in objective morality. And as Ernie Laurence Jr. stated in another topic, there is no place that we can actually observe this objective morality (assuming it exists); we can only trust the testimony of other people who claim to have access to it (the people who wrote the Bible, in Ernie’s case). So it doesn’t make a lot of sense to say that what you understand to be moral should be imposed upon other people just because you think it is (a) moral, and (b) binding to others.
I don’t know if that’s how you think (nor is it really relevant to my case here), but I can guarantee you that the biggest, loudest voices in Christian legislature do not care whether or not the people these laws would punish or discriminate against actually believe in god; they don’t want to pass laws saying you have to believe in god, because they know there is no way to force people to believe (and as odious as they’ve become in politics, they’re still smart enough to realize that it’s political suicide to start a battle you can’t win). Rather, they prefer to assert that “god is necessary to ground morality” (which is only necessary if we claim that (a) the only morality is objective morality, (b) that OM exists, and (c) that theirs is the best way to reflect that ideal) to justify making cases around laws that enforce religious discrimination.
[/rant]
You don’t believe in his existence (which can change one day, if you so choose)
I’d say that’s a small fallacy. One’s beliefs are in his/her control, yes, but not directly. I cannot simply choose to believe one way or the other, especially on such an important issue. I’m more like a rock getting swept around by a current of information that dictates where I (my position) lands. When the flow changes to introduce new data, it’s possible for me to be swept to a new location, but I cannot just jump there by myself for no reason.
A solid example of this: Can you “choose” to not believe in god? I mean, you could start acting like you didn’t believe in him, and you could say you don’t, but would that really change deep down? I mean, can you decide right now to just “stop believing in god” and be totally 100% sincere about it? I don’t believe you can; that’s not me talking down to you, that’s me saying that I don’t think people can directly control their convictions, especially ones that are deep-seated enough to be labeled “spiritual” (or non-spiritual, in my case~).
You can in fact know the mind of God, but only what He is willing to reveal to accommodate our current capacity of understanding as humans.
Assuming that’s the case: How do you know that god hasn’t told someone else something that he hasn’t told you?
What I mean is….obviously, if god exists then he doesn’t work by the same methods he did when the Bible first came out. Otherwise we’d have amendments to the OT and NT out the wazoo. No, he seems to go more on a person-to-person revelation type basis now; a guy (or guys) talks to god, and then he tells other people something that sounds profound and some of them agree, and that sort of becomes the new canon. It’s not really a pen-and-paper venture anymore. So can you really honestly say that you know that god hasn’t visited somebody and said, “Hey, this guy’s a sinner and he’s gonna die anyway — I can see his future and I already know that he’s never gonna accept me — and so I figure I’ll make good use of this to give you a chance to prove your loyalty to me; go ahead and kill that guy!”? I mean, based on your current understanding you don’t seem to think he would do that. But can you say that you actually know that? Have you directly observed an absence of this behavior in god? Or is that just something you conclude based on what you believe or have read/been told?
Those who say that they are fulfilling the will of God by, say, killing atheists or abortionists, and according to scripture, have entirely twisted the essence of God totally out of context. God is not some mob boss who orders hits on those that don’t serve him.
What’s scary about this, though, is that oftentimes people speak about these abortionist murders (such as the murder of Dr. George Tiller) in the same way that you do — that god doesn’t “hate” and that he doesn’t order people to murder each other — but just read some of the comments in the other topics here about Tiller. You’ll see that people aren’t exactly distraught. One little girl — a 15-year old, I believe — actually said it was okay to blow up an abortion clinic “as long as there was nobody inside.”
That way of thinking leads a person to say almost exactly what you say here, but interpret it very differently; an example. You say that god would not order someone to kill someone else. But do you believe that god would give someone permission to kill someone to save someone else’s life? i.e. Shoot a serial killer before he stabs an innocent woman to death? If your answer to that is “yes,” then ask yourself this: If you truly believe that abortion is “infanticide” and that it is the same as murder, then how is it any different for a “True Christian” to believe that they are saving lives by killing this man who aborts fetuses? How is it not also “just” by those same rules?
An even simpler example: A lot of people (especially around here) seem to love to equate abortion with the Holocaust and Hitler of WW2. In the field of morality, a common ethical dilemma is, “If you could go back in time and kill Hitler before he rose to power — before he actually committed a crime or did anything that would make him a murderer or a criminal — would you do it?” The most popular answer (though not unanimously) is “yes.” And so if you believe that abortion is in any way equivalent to the Holocaust, then there is not necessarily an ethical dilemma in killing an abortion doctor. Therefore, your beliefs in this case do not unanimously exclude the possibility of a claim that killing an abortion doctor is “moral” or “just.”
Don’t get me wrong — I understand that you think otherwise and I think that is very good, but what you must understand is that not everyone of your religion shares those feelings, and they are not technically inconsistent within their own teachings (although I would still call them nothing short of “insane” in my book).
Dude, that math is crazy. Statistics give a sense of probability that a certain event would actually happen. If the statistics are nightmarish, what do you think the probability is in regards to the chance of occurrence is?
How do you explain, then, the fact that sometimes unlikely things just happen?
Let me give you an example. My little sister plays a lot of this video game called Pokemon, which is about nabbing these little critters from the wild and training them to do stuff for you. In this game, there is a special type of critter that has an infinitesimal chance of appearing — something like 1:9000 or higher, some ridiculous amount — called a “shiny” critter. People sometimes play this game for months at a time, logging in hundreds of hours collectively over long periods of time, and never see the critters. And yet, sometimes, people do. There have been rare documented cases of people discovering these rare creatures, even though the logarithms are incalculably stacked against the player. In fact, these critters existed for months after the game’s release before they were even discovered by the community!
The relevant factor being: There are times when unlikely things happen. Yes, there are some theories that are more probable (and therefore more likely accurate, in many cases), but that doesn’t mean that “improbable” is equivocable with “impossible.” Taken to your argument here, it makes even less sense — the idea that god (or something like him) created this universe is not even a matter of probability, because probability is a scientific term. Some formal study of god would be required to calculate any sort of probability regarding his existence. As it stands, we can’t even know from a scientific standpoint if god exists; the only arguments folks like Turek really have are the metaphysical ones, the philosophical ones. So even though the idea of some semblance or illusion of “order” (i.e. ordered organic systems) arising from what is basically “chaos” (the natural forces of the universe as arisen naturally) is improbable judging solely from a hard numerical standpoint, when compared to the idea of a creator, it is still quite feasible….because at least we know this idea is possible. We can’t even describe the idea of a god or creator scientifically, so we don’t even have a term to judge the validity of.
There has to be a Master when looking at the masterpiece that is life.
I disagree, but that’s a different argument. Instead I’ll point this out; even if there is/were such a “master,” there is an overwhelmingly significant probability (based solely on the presence of collected claims of all religions/myths currently recorded) that this being is not YHVH. The odds of it being that one particular god out of all of the thousands that exist are infinitesimal. The same is true for every other religion, of course, but that doesn’t change the fact that the odds are not in YHVH’s favor….
That’s like saying that my little brother doesn’t exist because I’m not talking to him.
I see what you mean, but no, it’s more like this:
You: “I have a little brother.”
Me: “Where is he?”
You: “Can’t you feel his presence?”
Me: “Not at all.”
You: “But having a little brother makes me feel safe and happy.”
Me: “That doesn’t necessarily make him real.”
You: “But god gave us all the ingrained ability to detect my little brother!”
Me: “Well, help me out here, because I don’t see him.”
You: “Well, he’s there.”
Me: “…alright, sure.”
And so on and so forth.
My problem is that you say it’s real, and I can say it’s not, and there is absolutely *nothing* you can do to show me that this law is real. You can argue why, in a peaceful world, it’s practical to live by some such rules (which I will not deny), but you can’t prove that they are objectively true. Those are completely different arguments. In the case of your brother not being real because you can’t see him, the reason that doesn’t follow through is because we can both look and see him standing there, independently of what the other thinks. The morality you describe is more like a kid that I can see, and you can see, but we see him in different places at the same time, and so where I see him you may see nothing at all, and where you see him I might see something completely different. Or a kid that you can see and I cannot, and that you argue the existence of based on how much better life would be if he did exist.
The repercussions of doing wrong still exist.
Sometimes, yes. Sometimes, no.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
P.S.
For some reason, this deal of morality always makes me think of those psychic folks I used to talk about/to/with a lot in high school. The kind who believe in ESP? The claim that we can all see this morality, and yet we can choose to obey/acknowledge it or not, makes me think of a psychic who says, “We all have some kind of psychic power. You do, too!” I might say to them, “I don’t have a psychic power.” To which they can respond, “Just because you don’t want to use it, or have been trained not to, doesn’t mean you don’t have it! Why won’t you admit that you have it?”
That has the potential to be very frustrating, indeed, because as you may or may not know from experience, it’s very, very difficult to prove that you do not have a psychic power. Simply not exercising it isn’t enough, because people can claim that you are purposefully restraining yourself. And so there’s really no definitive way to “prove” that you don’t have a psychic power.
The relevant point being, of course, that if we equivocate the ability to detect this so-called morality with “psychic power” for the duration of your argument, we have a similar scenario. You can claim that such a thing exists, and I can say it doesn’t, and you can’t prove that it does or that you see it; and although I can say that I do not see it, should you choose to deny that, there is no way that I can further demonstrate to you that I do not see it….that is precisely the reason why I think this argument has survived for so long.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Greetings,
Good night fellas, and may the Grace of God follow you until we speak again 
Here’s the deal. I was was seriously almost done with everyone’s rebuttal. Seriously. And then my computer froze. You can imagine the frustration I’m feeling just about now. I shut it down and lost everything. Everything. As eager as I am to truly exchange words, my computer is to blame for my complete drain of patience. I’ll do my very best to get back to you guys, all of you guys, tomorrow. I know, I’m very behind in the rebuttal. I will make an earnest endeavor to meet all rebuttals tomorrow morning or afternoon. I apologize fellas.
July 10th, 2009 at 3:17 am
“I was was seriously almost done with everyone’s rebuttal. Seriously. And then my computer froze”
Perhaps God is trying to tell you something.
Only kidding!
July 10th, 2009 at 5:12 am
Oh, that’s nothing, this used to happen to me all the time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVUSlSKLZ1o
July 10th, 2009 at 9:46 am
Jalen, you said that your G-d “would never ask a Christian to murder an un-believer as a “just act of love”. That’s just not in his nature.”
What is your take on some of these verses:
For it was of the LORD to harden their hearts, to meet Israel in battle in order that He might utterly destroy them, that they might receive no mercy, but that he might destroy them, just as the LORD had commanded Moses. Joshua 11:20
Thus you shall do to all the cities that are very far from you, which are not of the cities of these nations nearby. Only in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes. But you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the LORD your God has commanded you, so that they may not teach you to do according to all their detestable things which they have done for their gods, so that you would sin against the LORD your God. Deuteronomy 20:15-18
Moses was angry with the officers of the army, the captains of thousands and the captains of hundreds, who had come from service in the war. And Moses said to them, “Have you spared all the women? Behold, these caused the sons of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, so the plague was among the congregation of the LORD. Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves.Numbers 31:14-18
How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones against the rock.Psalm 137:9
July 10th, 2009 at 7:34 pm
P.S. I just noticed this, but John spelled “moniker” wrong in his original article. There’s no “c” in moniker -.-
July 12th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
I bet John is still trying to find out something about neuter plural nouns in ancient Greek. That’s why we haven’t heard from him. Of course if he hadn’t falsely bragged he was some kind of Greek language expert he wouldn’t have painted himself into a corner. Oh what a web we weave whenever we start to deceive. I personally think John Ferrer is a liar and a religious fanatic. Anyone doubt this?
July 12th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Oh what a web we weave whenever we start to deceive.
Isn’t it, “When first we practice to deceive? 0.0
July 12th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Thanks Tim. I’ll see about correcting that.
Boris,
I had a rather long entry prepared when my computer froze and deleted my response. Once it was deleted, I could not muster the energy to retype it since my efforts to speak respectfully and intelligently with you have resulted in you personally attacking me, ignoring the substance of my arguments, and venting venomous attacks against all Christendom with little regard for specifics, accuracy, nor any concern for the emotional and psychological consequences of your words. You show no significant familiarity with the applicable philosophy, formal logic, informal logic or formal argumentation. In my previous efforts with you, you show little responsiveness to my ACTUAL arguments, failing to critique particular points with substantive (ie: evidence-supported) objections, retaliating merely with assertion upon assertion without causal relations between them, hence no significant argument in your favor. Am I going to have to spell out even more clearly for you what I mean when I’m asking for arguments instead of assertions? Please, be aware that what you say can and will be used against you, as I am teaching a college logic class this fall and you have demonstrated numerous logical fallacies as well as any textbook I’ve read. I already have in mind several of your statements that I plan to use to illustrate “ad hominem,” “non-sequitur,” “scarecrow,” and “hasty generalization.” Please look these terms up, then look over your own blog entries here. For your own sake, if you want to sound like more than a sophist or spiteful propagandist then it would be in your best interest to learn how these fallacies work in contrast to good arguments so you can strengthen your case and perhaps even persuade a person or two intellectually. As it stands now, you are emoting, asserting, and accusing, not debating.
Since you do not seem to know what a non-sequitur is, and probably would call me liar if I quoted some standard source definition of it, I’ll just humor your request, even though you have not shown how the neuter plural pronoun relates significantly to the argument at hand. [If you change your mind and decide to check the definition, you can see a definition of “non-sequitur” in this article article from infidels.com http://www.infidels.org/librar.....ogic.html]
Neuter–the third gender, besides masculine and feminine. Used largely to conceptually tie modifying words to their modifier. this is especially helpful since Greek word order is more fluid than in English, and often a modifer can be either before or after, and near or far from its modificand. Generally, grammatical gender has no relation to literal gender (male or female).
Plural–one of two grammatical number types (in distinction from singular). Greek lacks a “dual” category as Hebrew has. Plural nouns indicate two or more of something, whether concrete or abstract. Grammatical number also serves in connecting modifers to their modificand.
Nouns–nominal category for substantive words (whether conceptual or abstract). Generally, these serve as modificands being modified by adjectives, prepositions, etc. Should not be mistaken for nominative case, though there is a conceptual relation there. Nouns do indeed come in the nominative, but also in the dative, the genitive, accusative. Plus, adjectives and participials (usually in the nominative case) can function like nouns.
Neuter plural nouns can fit a collection of objects (concrete or abstract), or a plurality of times, events, etc. Generally, they would not suit a collection of persons since groups of persons are referred to (if all female) in the feminine, or as male (if even one male is among them, or the gender is unknown, unstated, or irrelevant). Neuter plural nouns, have no direct relation however to “atheos” since atheos is a masculine, singular, adjective.
I never claimed to be a “Greek language expert.” But I do claim to know what I am talking about in regards to atheos. So you are deceitful in saying that I am a self-proclaimed expert. Since you overgeneralized there, and thus show yourself a liar, please clarify how it is that you are justified in calling me a liar? I have transcripts to prove my study in Greek, so I am not totally ignorant (which you have also claimed about me). But nor do I claim t be an expert (which you also claim about me). You are therefore lying on two counts, and I have the records to prove it. Care to disagree with me on this? Do you really think you right?
Now that I’ve humoured your irrelevant request. Can we get on with the discussion at hand without your distractions and personal attacks now? I would like to be more civil, but that does not work well with you.
I have several objections.
First, this article I have written is neither a defense for God-belief nor an argument against God-belief. You consistent attack on God-belief, and consistent advocacy of your own definition of atheism is not particularly relevant to the article. So, you are committing a straw man fallacy by portraying this article as if it is some kind of “weak argument for theism.” Its not an argument for theism at all. It was never meant to be. You are also blatantly misrepresenting my argument, or misreading it. I’m not sure which. Either way, you are not addressing the substance of my argument and thus suggest to your readers that you don’t understand it.
Second, I have to clarify some basic logic since you do not seem to realize how I already rebutted your claim by pointing out it is a non-sequitur. You commit the non-sequitur (lit. “does not follow”) fallacy by requesting I prove my (unrelated) Greek skills to you in regards to a general question about the neuter plural noun. If you could show that that is how “atheos” parses out, AND that this parsing affects how the alpha privative applies to the meaning of “atheos” then you might have a relevant argument. But as it stand now, atheos is a singular masculine adjective and not a plural neuter noun, so I see no pertinent relation between your question and the subject at hand. Likewise, you would rightly object against me if I demanded you comprehensively define “poetry,” or parse out “octopi” before I grant that you have any legitimate knowledge of English. The pertinence is not apparent, therefore this reeks of a “non-sequitor” fallacy aka: a “red herring.” It just is not related to the topic at hand and so serves to distract rather than contribute to the argument. You might as well dismiss theism because of a spelling error in my article. The two are just not significantly related.
Third, for the Nth time, please give an argument to support any of your major claims. You have now added to your unsupported assertions your “personal” view that I am a “liar and a religious fanatic.” You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but fortunately for me, your opinion has little to no bearing on reality. Lacking any argument or evidence to support your claims, I measure that personal opinion as a practical equivalent to someone’s “personal opinion” that faeries exist, or that alien abductions are a regular occurrence. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but those have no bearing on objective reality unless they can appeal to objective reality (ie: facts, evidence, etc.) in a way that causally connects their view to what is ACTUALLY REAL. How do we make such a connection? By argument and debate.
If you care to join our debate, you are welcome to enter. But shouting from the balcony makes you look bad, derails the intelligent conversations going on here, and wastes my time. If you want to emote and attack, go to some other blog. If you want to debate, then step up and join us. But do step up. I have no personal problem with you, since I do not know you personally. But honestly, you haven’t given me much intellectual contribution here to respect. I’ve seen on other blogs where you had some insightful contributions, but I haven’t seen anything near that here. I hope you can offer a good argument, but so far I’ve been losing hope each time you respond.
July 12th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
Thanks Tim. I’ll see about correcting that.
Boris,
I had a rather long entry prepared when my computer froze and deleted my response. Once it was deleted, I could not muster the energy to retype it since my efforts to speak respectfully and intelligently with you have resulted in you personally attacking me, ignoring the substance of my arguments, and venting venomous attacks against all Christendom with little regard for specifics, details, or accuracy of your accusations, nor any concerned for who you hurt. You show no significant familiarity with the applicable philosophy, formal logic, informal logic or formal argumentation. In my previous efforts with you, you show little responsiveness to my ACTUAL arguments, failing to critique particular points with substantive (ie: evidence-supported) objections, retaliating merely with assertion upon assertion without causal relations between them, hence no significant argument in your favor. Am I going to have to spell out even more clearly for you what I mean when I’m asking for arguments instead of assertions? Please, be aware that what you say can and will be used against you, as I am teaching a college logic class this fall and you have demonstrated numerous logical fallacies as well as any textbook I’ve read. I already have in mind several of your statements that I plan to use to illustrate “ad hominem,” “non-sequitur,” “scarecrow,” and “hasty generalization.” Please look these terms up, then look over your own blog entries here. For your own sake, if you want to sound like more than a sophist or spiteful propagandist then it would be in your best interest to learn how these fallacies work in contrast to good arguments so you can strengthen your case and perhaps even persuade a person or two intellectually. As it stands now, you are emoting, asserting, and accusing, not debating.
Since you do not seem to know what a non-sequitur is, and probably would call me liar if I quoted some standard source definition of it, I’ll just humor your request, even though you have not shown how the neuter plural pronoun relates significantly to the argument at hand. [If you change your mind and decide to check the definition, you can see a definition of “non-sequitur” in this article article from infidels.com http://www.infidels.org/librar.....ogic.html]
Neuter–the third gender, besides masculine and feminine. Used largely to conceptually tie modifying words to their modifier. this is especially helpful since Greek word order is more fluid than in English, and often a modifer can be either before or after, and near or far from its modificand. Generally, grammatical gender has no relation to literal gender (male or female).
Plural–one of two grammatical number types (in distinction from singular). Greek lacks a “dual” category as Hebrew has. Plural nouns indicate two or more of something, whether concrete or abstract. Grammatical number also serves in connecting modifers to their modificand.
Nouns–nominal category for substantive words (whether conceptual or abstract). Generally, these serve as modificands being modified by adjectives, prepositions, etc. Should not be mistaken for nominative case, though there is a conceptual relation there. Nouns do indeed come in the nominative, but also in the dative, the genitive, accusative. Plus, adjectives and participials (usually in the nominative case) can function like nouns.
Neuter plural nouns can fit a collection of objects (concrete or abstract), or a plurality of times, events, etc. Generally, they would not suit a collection of persons since groups of persons are referred to (if all female) in the feminine, or as male (if even one male is among them, or the gender is unknown, unstated, or irrelevant). Neuter plural nouns, have no direct relation however to “atheos” since atheos is a masculine, singular, adjective.
There I’ve humoured your irrelevant request. Can we get on with the discussion at hand without your distractions and personal attacks now?
I have several objections.
First, this article I have written is neither a defense for God-belief nor an argument against God-belief. You consistent attack on God-belief, and consistent advocacy of your own atheism is not particularly relevant to the article. So, you are committing a straw man fallacy by portraying this article as if it is some kind of “weak argument for theism.” Its not an argument for theism at all! It was never meant to be. You are also blatantly misrepresenting my argument, or misreading it. I’m not sure which. Either way, you are not addressing the substance of my argument and thus suggest to your readers that you don’t understand it.
Second, I have to clarify some basic logic since you do not seem to realize how I already rebutted your claim by pointing out it is a non-sequitur. You commit the non-sequitur (lit. “does not follow”) fallacy by requesting I prove my (unrelated) Greek skills to you in regards to a general question about the neuter plural noun. If you could show that that is how “atheos” parses out, AND that this parsing affects how the alpha privative applies to the meaning of “atheos” then you might have a relevant argument. But as it stand now, atheos is a singular masculine adjective and not a plural neuter noun, so I see no pertinent relation between your question and the subject at hand. Likewise, you would rightly object against me if I demanded you comprehensively define “poetry,” or parse out “before I grant that you have any legitimate knowledge of English. The pertinence is not apparent, therefore this reeks of a “non-sequitor” fallacy aka: a “red herring.” It just is not related to the topic at hand and so serves to distract rather than contribute to the argument. You might as well dismiss theism because of a spelling error in my article. The two are just not significantly related.
Third, If you retain your position that I am “on trial” instead of my argument, then you are committing a genetic fallacy (ie: faulting a message because of its messenger) and perhaps an ad hominem (ie: attacking the messenger). I repeat, I am not on trial since I show you the sourcing and evidential argument to support my central thesis. If I spoke entirely from my own authority, “I declare [without argument] that atheism is defined as X” then it would be fair to question my authority in making that claim. But since I showed pertinent sourcing and evidence of adequate familiarity with the greek term atheos, then the burden is on you to address my argument. Attacking me does not help your case.
Fourth, for the Nth time, please give an argument to support any of your major claims. You have now added to your unsupported assertions your “personal” view that I am a “liar and a religious fanatic.” You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but fortunately for me, your opinion has little bearing on reality. Lacking any argument or evidence to support your claims, I measure that personal opinion as a practical equivalent to someone’s “personal opinion” that yogurt is yucky, faeries exist, blue is the best color, or that alien abductions are a regular occurrence. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but those have no bearing on objective reality unless you can appeal to objective reality (ie: facts, evidence, etc.) in a way that causally connects your view to what is ACTUALLY REAL. How do we make such a connection? By argument and debate.
July 12th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
What is G-d trying to tell you guys with the freezing computers? I mean G-d ordains all, and I never have this problem.
Then again, maybe it’s just because I use a Mac…
July 13th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
I guess certain comments just get lost in “awaiting moderation” purgatory, eh? I only ask because I posted a humorous short video clip awhile back that never went through….ah, well.
If anyone’s curious, it was on youtube under the search tags “Lucky star” and “curse of the web.” Given all these computer shortcomings recently, I think just about everyone could relate~
July 13th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
I think posting links sometimes brings comments into the “awaiting moderation” universe.
Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t.
I’ve noticed though, that posting certain words, simply prevents posts from showing up (not even with the “awaiting moderation” comment”).
Not “curse” words (which I’ve actually never attempted to post), but words describing things some might consider immoral — things taken directly from the Bible.
I think a lot of this is done not to stifle our free speech (not that a private site necessarily owes anyone free speech rights), but to keep out spammers. I think “curse” words actually show up fine, as spammers are not as likely to use them, words describing “less-than-moral” services can get filtered out automatically.
I once tried to post a Bible passage as part of a long post, and nothing happened. I read through it looking for something which may seem offensive, removed it, and my post went through fine.
July 13th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Well, I can still see it on the list, it says, “your comment is awaiting moderation:”
Tim D. Says: [Your comment is awaiting moderation.]
July 10th, 2009 at 5:12 am
Oh, that’s nothing, this used to happen to me all the time:
[link]
July 13th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
Yeah. I have posts from long ago which still say that. I think that it doesn’t show up as awaiting moderation in the mod queue, but is flagged as that from the standpoint of your user profile (i.e. based on cookies on your system).
July 13th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
Ah. Well, now we know that.
I just found it odd, because I noticed other people were posting links and it got through almost immediately. What triggers this, I wonder? It would save me a lot of time in the future….
July 13th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
John,
You made the claim that you had studied ancient Greek. It is not a non sequitur for me to question you about this since your post reflected the fact that you have not. Your answers prove that you have not studied ancient Greek. I’ll just mention the most obvious mistakes. First any first year Greek student would know that neuter plural nouns take a singular verb. Students learn about this little anomaly as soon as they begin learning about verbs. Had you actually ever studied ancient Greek this is the answer you would have given rather than supplying me with a bunch of useless information. Second ancient Greek does indeed have a dual although this was no longer in use by the time the New Testament was written. Third nouns are not parsed, verbs are. Nouns are declined.
As for your original article I’ve already corrected your mistakes. A person who has a lack of knowledge of God is called an agnostic, one with a lack of belief in God an atheist. A person like me who claims there is no God is an anti-theist. There’s nothing to argue about further. You stand corrected.
First your article was on trial, but then you made some spurious claims about yourself, couldn’t back them up and look very foolish now having even tried so now you are on trial buddy. Your integrity and honesty must be seriously questioned now. Not to mention your knowledge of Greek and your ethics for even having written this article.
Now I don’t know what it is exactly you want me to make an argument for. Why don’t you tell me? BTW a Christian Bible believer teaching a class in logic is hard to imagine.
July 14th, 2009 at 1:51 am
Boris, Boris, Boris. . . .
Your first paragraph demonstrates why I should have never dignified your non sequitur. You have not yet shown how my knowledge of the neuter plural noun is relevant to the masc. sing. adjective “atheos.”
I grant that nouns are declined–still irrelevant to the argument at hand.
I grant that ancient Greek had a dual grammatical number at some time in the past–still irrelevant to the argument.
I grant that that neuter plural nouns take a singular verb–still irrelevant to the argument.
I need only employ sources and argument effective to justify the conclusion of my argument. And while you disagree with my argument, you have not addressed the substance of my argument. As such, you have done nothing to even weaker my conclusion. At this point you are just trying to goad me into a “I know more Greek than you do” argument, which is ridiculous and unrelated.
Boris, you say that you have “already corrected my mistakes.” Then you proceed to give assertions on how “atheist” “agnostic” and “anti-theist” should be defined. Lacking any argument (which I described in the last post) I still see no substantive rebuttal to my argument, nor any evidence in favor of your alternative definitions. As such, these assertions remain unsupported (except perhaps on the merit of your own authority). So you have not even started to “argue.” I’m not sure then what to make of your conclusion that “there is nothing to argue about further.” If the argument is done, yet you have not argued your point, then that means you defense rests after hearing only my case. I’m not playing word games here, I’m just trying to get you to do your homework, show your work, and then come to the table with some reason, and evidence, and justification to back up your assertions. This is how debate works. This is how argumentation works.
Again, I am not on trial since I am not BASING my definition of atheos my own authority/expertise (I claim only 4 semesters of experience, and personal study, mostly in Matthew, subsequent to it). If I said, “I’ve studied Greek for five years, and know the language inside and out, and I can speak authoritatively that atheos means X.” –If I said that, then I would be employing my experience as a basis of argument, a kind of evidence to support my conclusion. Since we are engaged in formal argument here, you can crossexamine any evidence presented. But since I do not offer my experience in Greek as an evidence for my argument, then attacking it amounts to a logical fallacy. Consequently, YOU ARE COMMITTING A NON-SEQUITUR. Furthermore, since you show intent to discredit my conclusion by discrediting my knowledge of Greek YOU ARE COMMITTING A GENETIC FALLACY. I have given you the argument behind these conclusions, I present them as arguments against your position. And Now I await your argued rebuttal. Note that asserting things without evidence behind them does not amount to an argument. Show how the neuter plural noun applies to the argument and you will not be guilty of a Non-sequitur, or show how I have based the central argument in the article on my own authority as a Greek scholar (a status I do not claim for myself) and you will not be guilty of the genetic fallacy.
YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN THAT MY UNDERSTANDING OF ATHEOS IS HISTORICALLY, OR CURRENTLY INACCURATE. You don’t even have to “prove” your case, just argue it. Yet you make only assertion upon assertion.
Also, are you now questioning my ethics? That is both a non-sequitur and a genetic fallacy. It is a genetic fallacy because you are trying to attack (what you interpret to be) my motives, yet are not addressing the substance of my argument.
Boris, honestly, if you “don’t know what it is [I] want [you] to make an argument for” then you just aren’t listening. I have stated over and over and over again that I await your argument to show how my article is wrong and your assertions are right. I hear you make assertions, then reassert them, then reassert them again. But never in there is there an argument. Instead, you proceed to attack my character (ad hominem fallacy), and make bold claims about how all theists are somehow dishonest or deluded since they are really atheists at heart (another ad hominem, and fallacy of poisoning the well), you attack my credentials (genetic fallacy, ad hominem, non-sequitur). I can’t help but think that you are trying to divert attention from the fact that you have yet to present any evidence that my article is wrong, or that your alternative definitions are right.
Your last comment does not help you at all. When you say, “BTW a Christian Bible believer teaching a class in logic is hard to imagine.” Since I am teaching logic this Fall, then apparently, REALITY IS HARD FOR YOU IMAGINE.
Boris your estimation of Christians is obviously low, but that does not say so much about Christians as it does yourself. There are some pretty smart Christians out there, some intellectually astute ones, and some of them are really great people. They really do exist. And there are more of them then you might realize. You might not see this, but nor can I make you open your eyes. I can do nothing to solve voluntary blindness.
July 14th, 2009 at 10:03 am
Here’s a major flaw in your article:
However in recent times the definition has come under question by atheist themselves. Three motivating factors can be identified.
Atheists aren’t trying to redefine atheism for the purposes of defending it in arguments with people who believe in supernatural claptrap and nonsense like you do. Atheism doesn’t need to be defended. It is the theists like you who are attempting to claim atheism takes a positive position so you can then muster some lame arguments against it. You have no arguments against a lack of belief in God so you simply claim that isn’t what atheism is. But it is. Now I claimed to be an anti-theist thereby taking the position you want all atheists to take and you still haven’t come up with one argument against that even. You’re the one who can’t make any good arguments John and everyone can see that here. Especially the other atheists who have already soundly refuted all the points in your goofy article.
John, I don’t believe you have ever studied ancient Greek or ever set foot on a college campus. I think you’re just another Christian Internet fraud. In fact I’m sure of it now.
July 14th, 2009 at 10:42 am
John,
If you had to provide a 1 or 2 sentence summary of your article, what would this look like?
Thanks,
Luke
July 14th, 2009 at 12:18 pm
Luke,
The meaning of “atheist,” tracing back to the Greek “atheos” originally meant “godless, without God, rejection of God” and has come to mean “rejection of God/disbelief in God/belief in no God” (ie: positive atheism), and up until recently it has remained unchallenged in its historic definition. However, of late, many self-proclaimed atheists, agnostics, non-theists, and anti-theists are largely unaware of the historic and contemporary formal definition of the term “atheist,” as such, they often misuse the term to refer to “soft atheism” which is roughly generalized form of agnosticism, ie: “no belief in God.” I do not think this slip is entirely accidental since there are strategic advantages to taking a “soft atheist” position (namely, it does not make a claim and therefore does not carry a burden of proof).
July 14th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Boris,
Fallacies you committed in your last entry: ad hominem (attacking the person), red herring (distraction), non-sequitur (does not follow), misuse of authority (you question my authority, when I was not speaking on the basis of my authority, but on the basis of evidence and argument), straw man (you still seem to think that I’m argument for or against God belief in this article when I’m really just arguing over definitions), hasty generalization (you jump to your conclusions without offering an argument leading up to them), need I go on?
Andrew, Luke, Tim, did I miss any?
Boris, take a logic course, with a Christian teacher if you have to, then see if you can salvage your claims. I don’t have time to debate philosophically intermediate material with people do not even accidentally employ remedial familiarity with logical argumentation.
At this point I’m not even really objecting to you claims, I don’t really need to. You are handling them so recklessly you are destroying your own case. You might have a case in your favor, but you have not yet used any substantive evidence to show that you do. I’M NOT EVEN ADDRESSING THE QUALITY OF YOUR ARGUMENT OR EVIDENCES, I’M JUST ASKING FOR YOU TO PRESENT AN ARGUMENT AND SOME EVIDENCE. I’m not dismissing anything here, I’m really quite open, pleading even that you bring some kind of an argument to the table.
This conversation with you Boris is just getting boring now. I’m tired of pointing out the logical fallacies and repeatedly asking for you to make a case rather than assert your opinion. By all means, use your Greek skills, use your theological training, use your apologetics or debating experience and formulate an argument. I really wish you would, so I’d have something interesting to interact over. You’ve made your opinion clear, but you have not shown any real effort to demonstrate that its more than just an opinion. In my article, I’m not simply asserting my opinion, I’m offering sources, giving an argument, addressing rebuttals, clarifying my position with the different bloggers.
July 14th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Thanks John.
I appreciate it.
July 14th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
“I do not think this slip is entirely accidental since there are strategic advantages to taking a “soft atheist” position (namely, it does not make a claim and therefore does not carry a burden of proof).”
I get what you’re saying. It’s kind of like saying a court is trying to get you on manslaughter because it’s easier than proving murder, right? But if someone is deliberately adopting this strategy then they’re settling for a smaller prize. They’re shooting for a smaller target. They’re winning less in such a debate than if they argued for the ‘hard atheist’ position. People are welcome to argue for any position they want, and you’re welcome to reject the debate if you wish. It’s perhaps similar to Christians arguing for Intelligent Design rather than full-blown creationism, because
July 14th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
…because they think it’ll be an easier case to make. I have no problem with someone arguing that the earth is less than a billion years old because they think it’s an easier case to make than their REAL belief that it’s only a few thousand years old. If I think my own position is justifiable then I’ll defend it against such a person. The debate that they present is what is relevant, the case they are trying to make - not what you believe they may really believe, or
July 14th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
…because they think it’ll be an easier case to make. I have no problem with someone arguing that the earth is less than a billion years old because they think it’s an easier case to make than their REAL belief that it’s only a few thousand years old. If I think my own position is justifiable then I’ll defend it against such a person. The debate that they present is what is relevant, the case they are trying to make - not what you believe they may really believe, or
July 14th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
Sorry, I’m posting on a laptop that keeps posting before I’m finished.
The debate that they present is what is relevant, the case they are trying to make - not what you believe they may really believe, or even the particular label you or they use to sum up their belief. The word describes the belief - it doesn’t change it and it doesn’t change their argument.
July 14th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Andrew Ryan, that’s my point exacty.
In debate and logical argumentation it is strategically wise to pick winnable battles, narrow your focus, and guard against unjustified or hard-to-defend claims. So I have no problem when an atheist dons an agnostic position so they can entertain different possibilities academically or just to avoid having to defend a position they are not yet prepared to defend. There is nothing wrong with that. And practically speaking, we can’t all be expected to always have a ready defense for every philosophical or theological commitment we have. What I do have a problem with is when a theist or atheist presents themselves as “theist” and “atheist” but means something new, strange or different by those terms. If a person is going to use a term differently from its conventional definition, then he/she needs to specify what alternative definition they are using. And if they are simply unaware of the definition of that term, then they need to learn the term befor they call themselves by it. Using a term equivocally like that is either misguided or deceptive.
July 14th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
I enjoy listening to The Atheist Experience, a weekly cable show coming out of Austin, Texas. What they always ask callers is ‘tell me what you believe in and why’. Forget labels - how can one word sum up the widely divergent beliefs of millions of people. There are Christians whose beliefs don’t much resemble the beliefs of other Christians at all. If someone tells me they’re a Christian, it’s hard to make any assumptions about their beliefs at all. You have to ask. I’m sure you get more frustrated than I do about Christians who say they’re not even sure about the veracity of the virgin birth!
Nowadays, if someone calls themselves an atheist, likely as not they just mean they don’t think there’s a God. They tell you they’re an atheist, you pretty much know where they’re coming from. If you want to clarify, just ask them: ‘tell me what you believe in and why’.
July 14th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Well, for future reference on my behalf….when I say “atheist” — and when others I know in person say it, and when people I hang with on forums say it — I mean, “I do not believe that god exists.” Although I am open to being swayed by debate on this (as difficult as that is to do), I am currently an atheist. I do not believe that god exists. I believe there is more “evidence” (so to speak) that god does not exist than there is “evidence” (so to speak) that he does.
I think what is confusing you, Mr. Ferrer, is the statement of what that person would accept as “evidence” to the contrary? Am I correct? If so, I’d like to point out really quick that what it would take to change an atheist’s mind has little bearing on the definition of “atheist.” A person can firmly believe that GOD DOES NOT EXIST and believe that he/she can prove it, and not be open to debate at all, and he/she can be just as much of an “atheist” as a person like me who begrudgingly entertains the opposing arguments even though I don’t feel likely to be converted (mostly because of the “can’t prove a negative” thing).
If that’s not what you’re saying, well, then feel free to just disregard this post. But keep in mind what I said for future reference if you will, because it will make future discussions of this subject MUCH easier to navigate from the get-go~
July 15th, 2009 at 9:59 am
John,
Now you’re really getting desperate. I pointed out major flaws in your article and you respond by calling that a non sequitur. You creationists all act like spoiled children when you get cornered in a debate. You’re getting the intellectual smack down you deserve John. Keep posting and I’ll jeep knocking over your lame arguments like bowling pins.
July 15th, 2009 at 4:00 pm
On a more interesting note…0.0
I found this blog today (courtesy of yet another blog) that describes some of the points you bring up here, Mr. Ferrer. Even if you don’t agree, I think it’s worth a read; it establishes many of the points I and others have tried to make here.
http://zackfordblogs.com/2009/.....tratheism/
July 15th, 2009 at 4:01 pm
….here’s hoping my above comment isn’t lost in “awaiting moderation” purgatory….
July 16th, 2009 at 8:35 am
“Having a strong faith in God can pull you through most anything.. It is those who do not believe in God that are truly running on empty.” –Anon
July 16th, 2009 at 11:11 am
Tim,
That’s a good site, very helpful stuff. But it does not really address my argument. However I may use some of the terms where I find equivocation occuring. It is generally helpful to have 2 or 3 synonyms on call for for each of the most pregnant terms.
First, I readily admit that for clarity’s sake we often have to add qualifiers and define and redefine our terms so that we don’t equivocate and talk past each other. Alternative terms then are needed. For this reason I’m open to the alternative terms: “strong/positive atheism” “weak/negative atheism” “antitheism/contratheism” “strong agnosticism” “weak agnosticism.” I admit as much in my article. But these are for clearing up confusion, or for “stop-gap” measures to advance to other more interesting subjects despite an opponent’s refusal to grant the standard definition.
Second, the chart Zak Ford proposes, though really helpful in clarifying certain subtleties commits the typical mischaracterization of agnosticism as being fundamentally a “belief” category rather than a “knowledge” category. The term agnosticism is etymologically based since its originator deliberately intended it as such, and clarified his intention as such, and specified its original application as such–it means “without knowledge” and regards God’s nature or existence specifically, and so it is to be understood in the strong sense of “no knowledge of God is possible.” Sure belief may be entailed therein, but God-knowledge is the point at issue in agnosticism. The chart Zack gives is a spectrum of belief, whereas Agnosticism would be a knowledge category.
Third, several of the alternative terms would not be necessary if people had stayed informed about the historic meaning of the terms they use. “Theist,” “Atheist,” “Agnostic,” ang “Skeptic” can cover the entire semantic domain of those categories.
July 17th, 2009 at 7:26 am
“Having a strong faith in God can pull you through most anything.. It is those who do not believe in God that are truly running on empty.” –Anon
This must be one of those times where my “internal moral compass” tells me that you are dead wrong…..:D
August 2nd, 2009 at 9:46 pm
I have two questions.
First to John: What is the point of your article exactly and why is it even worthy of any kind of lengthy discussion?
To Lizeth: How do you know that people who don’t believe in God are “truly running on empty?” Ex-Christians say that God is a mirage and believers are running on empty.
August 3rd, 2009 at 1:09 am
Bernie, I am clarifying the historic meaning of the term “atheism” since, as can be seen from many of the subsequent responses, many atheists and agnostics themselves often misuse or misapply the term. It is neither or proof nor disproof of atheism as such, but rather a semantic argument to help clarify terms for further productive discussion in other areas.
Also, I would add that some ex-christians are not even that kind about God to say that he is a “mirage.” some ex-christians suggest that God is a malevolent notion deliberately invented to deceive and control the masses.
August 6th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
some ex-christians suggest that God is a malevolent notion deliberately invented to deceive and control the masses.
I think I know that guy
December 14th, 2009 at 11:09 pm
I am curious if anyone has any comments on the fairly recent production by Julia Sweeney titled “Letting Go of God.”
December 15th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Haven’t read it. I can barely make it around to the academically weighted books, and the apologetically influential works.
Any good points worth noting in it? Does she take a particular track in the course of her presentation? I imagine its popular level, but does it have any good arguments or new thoughts to share on the subject?
December 17th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
This whole essay strikes me as making a fairly strange sort of move. It comes across as a complaint that atheists aren’t playing fair because they aren’t using the label “atheist” as it was originally used. That may be true, but it seems to me that it’s totally beside the point. I’ve seen the word “liberal” used elsewhere on this blog. Perhaps I should complain that that word isn’t being used to describe what “liberal” used to mean (i.e., something more like Locke or Smith or maybe Mill). Or perhaps we should take a stand against investment bankers on the grounds that “investment” is supposed to mean “putting on clothes.”
Of course, it would be rather silly of me to argue in that way. Words shift their meanings.
More to the point, though, you appear to be conflating a bunch of very distinct sorts of things. Of course a philosophical definition is likely to differ from a word’s etymology. Philosophers (particularly the analytic philosophers you cite here) engage in precising stipulative definitions. Etymology tells us about historical definitions. I fail to see why the fact that the former doesn’t neatly track the latter should be at all relevant.
If, OTOH, your main point here is just that there are lots of different varieties of atheism, then that certainly seems true, if a bit obvious. It’s not exactly news that there are lots of different types of theist. Why should it come as any shock that there are lots of varieties of atheists, too?
December 17th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
C.J., at minimum, a definitional study of “atheism” is a helpful historical study for understanding how atheism has evolved.
But more to the point, I’m not so much faulting atheists for “not playing fair” as I am for being ignorant of the predominant and standard meaning of their self-proclaimed titles. I’m aware of the different kinds of definitions (precising, stipulative, theoretical, etc.). I employ etymology because etymology matters when people wrongly use it. For example, Atheism=a-theism, a lack of ‘theism.’ I have heard debaters use this would-be etymology in defining their position on atheism ignorant that that that’s not how the term has developed. It is instead a-theos=atheos, “godless” which is translated from Greek into atheist. In turn, if I’m going to call myself “Christian” I should not say “Christian” first arose as a term of veneration for early followers of Christ, since it was first a term of derision. I’m being dishonest to present its history wrongly.
Etymology does affect subsequent definitions, but not in a controlling or overriding way. As for taking the term from a merely “philosophical” or “etymological” definition I quote an authoritative source for the English language:
Oxford English Dictionary
“atheism: (from Greek atheos, ‘without God, denying God’) Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism).”
Neither “disbelief” nor “denial” are the kind of “non-belief” that you seem to be implying as a/the going definition for atheism today. So in this case, contrary to your implication, the etymology does not differ widely from the “philosophical” definition or the standard definitions.
I readily admit that there are different brands of atheism extant today, but the going “default” definition, and the presumed standard definition that needs no adjectives has itself shifted from the standard dictionary definitions, unbeknownest to many atheists. This makes communication difficult, and for atheists themselves it makes atheism a safer category than it actually is. One can carry the prestige and apparent conviction of “atheist” when holding merely to agnosticism (or soft atheism). One position requires defense and conviction, the can rest in neutrality. One sounds bold and impressive, the other sounds soft and evasive. No disrespect to agnostics, I would be one myself if theism proved false. But it is an intellectually safer ground than atheism.
In short, it’s a good principle to live by that: people should know what position they hold and why, and be able to communicate it clearly. I expect the same ready apologetic for my students, as I would ask for any would-be intellectual, interlocutor, or debate opponent. Using a standarized term in a non-standard way demands some qualification to avoid miscommunication.
December 17th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
The way I see it, I don’t believe in god. That makes me an atheist
And I would assume the same of anyone else who says they are an atheist.
December 18th, 2009 at 1:25 am
Do you have any belief about the non-existence of God? Are you rejecting God? Well if so, then you are an atheist in the classical sense. If you have no belief about the non-existence of God but only a non-belief towards God then you are an atheist is the negative/weak/soft sense.
I would clarify my reasons for this distinction but it hasn’t stuck with most of the audience yet, and I don’t expect another attempt to help. There is a principled and important difference. I’m just tired of trying to explain it.
December 18th, 2009 at 8:13 am
Are you rejecting God?
I don’t believe he exists D I can’t reject what I don’t believe exists.
If you have no belief about the non-existence of God but only a non-belief towards God then you are an atheist is the negative/weak/soft sense.
For all practical purposes, I do not believe in god.
I would clarify my reasons for this distinction but it hasn’t stuck with most of the audience yet, and I don’t expect another attempt to help. There is a principled and important difference. I’m just tired of trying to explain it.
If “most of the audience” doesn’t even see a distinction (i.e. they have a set understanding and definition of the terms), then there’s really no point in correcting them. It’s not like the word has some completely different meaning from what people understand it to mean; it’s just technicality, splitting hairs, due to the fact that the word has taken on some subcultural significance. I still find it hard to believe that anyone is considering this a real “issue.”
I mean, you even acknowledge that there are different degrees to atheism (”soft/weak,” etc.). It’s really not practical to expect someone to explain the full scope of their views with just one label or word; as I believe it’s been said recently, nobody expects a Christian (or anyone else, for that matter) to be able to concisely pinpoint their views with just one word. And nobody’s arguing that we should start labeling Christians with all sorts of subtitles and subcultural categories….that would make discussions much more time-consuming and hassling. Besides, details like that are easily cleared up through a few moments of intelligent conversation — if you don’t have the time to question someone on what they think for just a few minutes, then why bother with them at all?
The only people I can really see having a genuine problem with this are people who do those “drive-by conversions” on the internet; if the word used to describe a person’s belief doesn’t give them enough information, then they can’t pretend to know in advance what the other person believes, and so they can’t preach to them effectively without a proper dialogue (which drive-bys are weak against).
December 18th, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Hrm. I still think it’s not particularly relevant what a word’s etymology is when the debate is over technical meanings of the word. And I totally fail to understand how introducing a lexical definition (however much I might like the OED) is supposed to help. You’ve just added still another type of definition. But I think that’s all beside the point, as I now (I think) understand what it is that you’re attempting to argue, and why it is that you want to argue along the “it takes faith to believe in atheism” line.
But I submit that the reason no one seems to be taking your distinction all that seriously is that it rests upon the same category error that (at least the standard reading of) Descartes’ ontological argument makes: namely, you’re trying to make existence into a property.
Properly speaking, though, I don’t have beliefs about existence or nonexistence. My beliefs are about whether anything in the world counts as an instantiation of a particular set of properties. So the theist’s claim about God would look something like:
∃x(Ax & Bx & Cx & … Zx)
where A, B, C, etc. are the various properties that God is purported to possess (omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence, omnipresence, etc.).
To say that that proposition is true is not to say that you believe God has the property of existing. And to claim that it is false is similarly not to say that you believe God has the property of non-existence. Because, of course, existence is a quantifier and not a property at all. So I don’t really have any sorts of beliefs about existence and/or non-existence. I only have beliefs about whether or not there is a particular thing that instantiates a particular set of properties.
As it happens, I think that the proposition listed above is in fact false. And I think that on the grounds that (a) extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, (b) existential arguments for God’s existence are mostly hand-waving at things like Prime Movers or anthropic principles that, even if they actually worked, wouldn’t actually show that Prime Mover or the Designer or what have you is the thing that possesses the properties of God, and (c) the various versions of the ontological argument didn’t work for St. Anselm in the 13th C and haven’t gotten any better since.
But that doesn’t entail that I have some active belief in the non-existence of God. Non-existence isn’t a property about which I can have beliefs. And anyone who has such a belief is making the same category mistake that people who accept (most versions of) the ontological argument make.
Of course, I suppose that you could instead opt for just rejecting 20th C analytic philosophy, dropping predicate calculus and hold on to Meinongian notion of existence. But it hardly seems fair to define “atheism” in such a way as to require all its adherents to adopt what many (most?) philosophers would consider a category error.