Quote:
Originally posted by Andrew_theist:
<strong>What I am saying here is that atheists use intelligence and imagination to reassure themselves there is no God. As a result you seem to want me to submit evidence for God so I can see this is not the case. However I don’t need to do that to prove my point Instead I will submit the evidence you have provided in this dialog concerning the meaning of atheism.</strong>
|
Then you are continuing with the evasive tactic, by trying to focus on semantics instead of the deeper issue. You
do need to submit evidence for God to show your point, since your point is that there is enough evidence for God, and we atheists just don't want to see it or that we see it but rationalize it away. That is what is at issue here, not the various ways in which people have used the term 'atheism.'
Quote:
|
<strong>Regarding our dialog about the meaning of atheism you have employed intelligence and imagination to avoid the meddlesome meaning it really has.</strong>
|
What's the meaning it "really has"? The one you like best?
Quote:
|
<strong>I submitted a quote from the Oxford dictionary, which was intellectualized as being written by some undergraduates. I then submitted quotes from atheists on the board including Mark Carrier and the Sec Webs dictionary, which were trivialized as quibbling over definitions. Now if you can use intelligence and imagination to re-invent what atheism means how can I possibly present any evidence for God that you won’t intellectualize away?</strong>
|
I did not "re-invent" what atheism means. I gave the simplest and most uncontroversial definition so far. The word comes from the Greek, with the "a" part meaning negation and the "theism" part meaning belief in God.
Others may have re-invented what atheism means, however, depending on what philosophical axes they've had to grind . What I was saying was, let's keep it as simple as possible. Let's go with the original and most literal definition. Theism is a lack of belief in gods.
Quote:
|
<strong>And what evidence can I possibly submit that your fundamentalist belief won’t refute by simply saying is not?</strong>
|
Citing different definitions of atheism is only evidence for how the word has been used. As has been pointed out in this thread, dictionaries describe usage, they do not prescribe it. And they often say nothing about any possible theological angles people are trying to insert.
Quote:
|
<strong>You’re absolutely right that the problem is you just don’t agree. It doesn’t matter what evidence I present or if I quote fellow atheists because this is a fundamental belief you are espousing and facts and evidence be damned. If you can use your intelligence and creativity to re-invent the meaning of atheism in light of powerful evidence to the contrary what chance is there for evidence of God?</strong>
|
The thing about the "definition game" is that I suspected what you were trying to do right away... You wanted to establish a definition of atheism that sets it up as a positive worldview in its own right, and therefore one that you can critique and attack. But I cut you off at the pass. And now you're frustrated because I won't let you go anywhere with this semantic tactic. So now you say I'm in "denial" and being a "fundamentalist" and "re-inventing" meaning because you're not getting your own way.
Quote:
|
<strong>I’d also like to point out why it is so advantages to argue in a thread that is at least 7 to 1 in favor of atheism. Because if I insisted on a point being true in light of evidence to the contrary half as strong as I presented I would be flamed on this thread from here to kingdom come. I would be branded a hopeless fundamentalist who believes in things in spite of the evidence. Yet you won’t hear a peep out of the so-called objective free thinkers on this board. So you can get away with things that I would be skinned alive for.</strong>
|
Skinned alive? Don't you think you're being a little melodramatic? If some people disagree with you, so what! What's your motivation? Do you want to play to an audience, or genuinely explore ideas with some depth? As long as you're polite, no one is going to kick you out of here.
Quote:
|
<strong>Secondly why are you so animated about this definition of atheism?</strong>
|
You're the one that's stuck on it. I said "Let's keep it simple and move on."
Quote:
|
<strong>Because by defining atheism as merely a lack of belief you frame the question is such away to avoid any real discussion or comparison of alternatives. You can launch salvos against the claims of theism while never having to defend the counter belief of God not existing or natural and material forces alone accounting for all we observe. By framing the question this way all any atheist need to is provide the slightest objection to any evidence and claim this refutes it. Then use this shallow victory to substantiate the claim that no God exists while never having to defend that statement. Now could you possibly ask for a greater advantage to make sure the outcome comes out the only way you are willing to accept it?</strong>
|
I don't have any hidden agenda in trying to define atheism in a certain way, to get a debating advantage or anything like that. I genuinely don't care for semantic disputes, so I go with definitions that are as simple and uncontroversial as possible. I think it is just the opposite of the case you've stated above; I think YOU'RE the one trying to establish a definition of atheism that you can build off of, as an argument tactic. And I think this is all just a diversion from the real issue, which is whether there is enough evidence for God.
Quote:
|
<strong>I have shown above the futility of evidence to persuade you regarding something you have made up your mind about. The problem will be the same as it was above its not that you won’t listen you just won’t agree. What could possibly be ‘adequate’ evidence? I have offered a preponderance of evidence regarding the definition of atheism and it was rejected in favor of a intelligent rationalizing and imagination.</strong>
|
You're just trying to muddle the waters here, and avoid the real issue at hand. If I don't go along with the definitons of atheism you like best, then I must be in denial, right? You're saying that there is no point in even producing evidence for God, since you know ahead of time that I'll rationalize it away. But you see, you're just being evasive by doing that. Instead of us discussing the evidence itself, you're focusing on baseless speculation of my psychological state. And a lot of your rhetoric in this post attests to this... accusing me of being a fundamentalist, and so on. Instead of demonstrating to me and everyone else how there is sufficient evidence for God and we atheists just don't want to see it, you're saying there's no point in you even discussing the evidence, since we're just going to discount it anyway. You're like a lawyer who refuses to present his case because he has already concluded that everyone's against him, and the jury's already made up their minds. And instead of focusing on the case, he quibbles over very technical legal definitions.
[About the lottery example]
Quote:
|
<strong>There was no response to my rebuttal. Yet amazingly in your own mind this was a victory of showing how fundamentally unsound my argument was. As I mentioned to your earlier there is no amount of evidence that can be presented to someone who has shown how willing they are to wrap reality around their pre-conceived notions and vein imaginations. Of course I anticipate your response will be utter denial, which is seen as acceptable on a board where the overwhelming majority are in agreement with you.</strong>
|
That wasn't much of a rebuttal, Andrew. Once again, you were accusing me of deciding beforehand that there can't be a guiding force, and thus it is ruled out
a priori. But I wasn't saying that, at all. Your "rebuttal" didn't even address what I said, but accused me of this
a priori ruling out of any possibility of the "divine fix." But I wasn't ruling it out, I was trying to show you that if we don't have any evidence for a divine fix then we shouldn't assume there is one. One cannot infer from the odds alone that there is a supernatural influence in the world. I am not committed to "blind chance" but I am saying that we ought to keep looking for naturalistic explanations of phenomena in nature, and not rule them out too soon. We don't have to rule out god, but we shouldn't rule out nature, either, just because something is difficult for us to understand at the present time.
<strong>
Quote:
|
Actually I did comment on this one early on only I used the Santa red herring instead of the unicorn one. In fact I used it as another example to support the position I am defending. That atheists use intelligence and imagination to avoid the issue of God.</strong>
|
I don't think it is a red herring. People have believed all sorts of supernatural or fantastic creatures throughout history. This is not an example of us atheists using our "intelligence and imagination"... We didn't make up unicorns, Santa, fairies, Zeus or hamadryads. You still haven't answered my question: "If we don't have any evidence for or against unicorns, what should we believe?" You are ardently striving against the idea that there can be a default position, and that is why you don't want to answer that question. Are you willing to say there are two competing worldviews, one for and one against unicorns? And the person who doesn't believe in unicorns is
a priori ruling out that they are even possible, and so the pro-unicorn person shouldn't even "bother" with showing whatever evidence he has? That is how I see your position.
<strong>
Quote:
|
The answer Santa can be easily falsified with a naturalistic explanation that is vastly superior, repeatable and demonstrable. If the two invocations are essentially the same why haven’t atheists produced some naturalist explanation that is as good or superior? Because there isn’t any and the analogy is false. So in my opinion many atheists prefer an unknown naturalistic explanation because they just as soon there are no meddling deity raining on their parade.</strong>
|
Santa cannot be so easily falsified, though -- if one is committed to belief in Santa, then one could easily rationalize away all the 'naturalistic explanations' that are given. See my post titled "The Santa Trial" in the archives.
[ January 31, 2002: Message edited by: Wyrdsmyth ]</p>
01-30-2002, 05:53 PM
