hezekiah jones

Working on far more substantive issues.

The above is a proposition of vanishingly small probability.

If you had read my previous post you would see that your appeal to Ayer is utterly without merit, and yet you continue to parade your embarrassing misunderstandings in public. The components of conditional statements are not in any sense "equal." Hence the demarcational nomenclature, "antecedent" and "consequent."

Once more with feeling: Your baseless metaphysical bleating is necessarily antecedent to any potential accusations of consequent nonsense-making on the part of atheists. In other words, accusing atheists of nonsense-making in this context is entirely based on necessarily admitting the nonsensical character of your own metaphysical assertions.

• If I am talking nonsense about god, then atheists are talking nonsense about god.
• I am talking nonsense about god.
• Ergo, atheists are talking nonsense about god.

Capiche?

We know it's nonsense. All we need is for you to admit it's nonsense. Go ahead. Double dare.

I think it's quite clear.

Since you lack a better word, let me suggest "non-credulity." And the "same trouble" as who? As you? I think not. Of course you are free to disabuse me of this notion to your heart's content. However you appear to have painted yourself into something of a logical corner by dint of your ludicrous appeal to A.J. Ayer.

Given the complete lack of empirical justification for your whimsical teleology and your evidently blatant and unapologetic admission of metaphysical nonsense-making, the answer is resoundingly and definitively, "Yes."

[With apologies to Koy for momentarily adopting his estimable style.]

[ May 07, 2002: Message edited by: hezekiahjones ]</p>

free12thinker

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Theli:
Your Reply:
I do understand the difference between belief, disbelief and lack of info. What I don't understand is where you get "disbelief" from...
My Reply:
Disbelief comes from a direct contradiction or a wholly lack of evidence or information.

Your Reply:
Here's another way of seeing (A)theism.
Godbelief is an attribute wich some people have and some don't. This description fits much better with the syntax of a-the-ims. The a- prefix
indicates a lacking of the sufix -theism, just as the a- prefix in amorality indicates a 'lack of' morality.
My Reply:
I don't think we have to discuss 'atheism' by definition. All we were discussing in our previous posts was a baby being an atheist by default.

Your Reply:
This example is incompatible with (A)theism since it's directly based on knowledge and not on a belief. Just because you write "I believe John Stockton..." instead of "I know/think John Stockton..." doesn't make it a belief/beliefsystem. It's an assumption.
My Reply:
I think our sticking point is in this very paragraph. You are completely separating knowledge and and belief, stating that one has nothing to do with the other. I simply don't see believing in something without knowledge. Therefore, if I have knowledge regarding something, I can believe or disbelieve in it, no matter what it is.

Your reply:
Godbelief is dependent on some knowledge in order to exist but it is not based on knowledge.
My reply:
I guess I can just reiterate that to me, and most atheists I know, belief cannot occur without knowledge.

Your Reply:
Why would someone have to tell me his belief in order to have one?
My Reply:
I don't know where this came from.

Your Reply:
Why not? If someone had no godbelief because no god explaination/theory/religion has been
convincing enough, is he not a "real" atheist?
My Reply:
Once again, I don't know where this came from.
Of course this person would be a real atheist. I was simply stating that Atheists do not disbelieve just because they feel like disbelieving. It is a result of using reason and logic.

Your Reply:
Have you ever met a mute christian? Is he not a "real" christian either?
My Reply:
It appears as though you are stating that just because someone doesn't state their beliefs out loud, that doesn't mean they aren't what they believe, and I concur with this. I never said that just because someone didn't say they were a christian that it made them non-christian. Never did I say this. And if you're referring to my baby argument that babies don't say this, this and this, I will simply state that I was simply making a reference to their lack of verbatim, their lack of reason, logic, information processing.....

WJ

jones, All!

Well, well, we have a very intellegent poster here who is concerned with 'credibility issues'? Mmmm, sounds like Hellenism revisted. Good, I like rational intellectuals... . And I hope he can teach those atheist's that their belief is absolute.

Oops, I stand corrected. Jones has spoken and answered the question. Atheism is only a default position.

Thank you! Did I misread that?

Walrus

hezekiah jones

More than likely. Note the qualifications please.

hezekiah jones

Belief in what, exactly?

[Note: The "act" of "not believing" in someone else's personal metaphysical fantasies is not the same as the "act" of "believing" in that person's subjective formulation of immaterial, fairy-like beings. That this fundamental concept of pedestrian level semantics should actually require elucidation for the benefit of any reasonably sentient human being strikes me as quite remarkable, to put it politely.]

[ May 07, 2002: Message edited by: hezekiahjones ]</p>

Pomp

I'm not sure which I enjoyed reading more. Koy:

Or hezekiah:

Theli

free12thinker...

Yes, most atheists directly disbelieves those god-definitions that has been presented to them. And some denies the very notion of a god (strong atheism).
But "disbelief" is not a good atribute to define atheism. Even theists disbelieve, almosts as much as us atheists.



Woa... what?

The definition of atheism is very essential to the thread.
If a baby is not considered an atheist due to lack of information regarding god-definitions, then why should I be considered an atheist?
I can say with certainty that I don't knowall god-definitions that exist.

Woah!!! stop there just a minute. I have never said that knowledge has absolutely nothing to do with beliefs.

Just that your example regarding John Stockton's abilities require a certain belief or disbelief based on certain knowledge.
Your example could be used regarding the christian beliefsystem.

QUESTION: Does the christian god as interpreted by the bible exist?

ANSWER:
1. Yes, I believe the bible's alledged truthfullness.
2. No, I disbelieve the bible's alledged thruthfullness.
3. "god"?

1 has belief in the christian god and therefore a godbelief (Theism).
2 does not have belief in the christian god but might have belief in another god-definition (Theism or Atheism).
3 does not have belief in the christian god. He can't have a godbelief since he does not know the meaning of the word "god". Therefore he has a "lack of godbelief" (Atheism).

Me neither...

It must be based on some knowledge but not completly based on it. Much of it is also makebelieve, stories, tales and exagerations.

I never said he felt like not believing. He has just not been presented with any convincing god-definitions. He might have heard some god-definitions wich he disbelieve because of reason and logic. Or he has just not heard of any god-definitions at all. And lacks godbelief because of it.

The problem, I think with dictionaries definition of Atheism (appart from the immoral part, that is) is that they tend to use the word "god" assuming that there is only one set definition of that word, saying that atheists are those who disbelieves this set definition.
Completely ignoring the fact that the word "god" is a very loosely used term.
And that "god" and "deity" is something everyone disbelieves in atleast one form or definition.

I think whoever wrote "disbelief in god" was religious himself.
I would much rather see something like
"don't believe in any god(s)"
or "lack of godbelief".

And that they left out the bigoted "immoral".


Anyway, thanks for responding.

Ender

Then you need to read a bit more of Ayer.

Ayer admitted it inasmuch in an interview with Bryan Magee in the book "talking philosophy."

God is dead. Any absolute truth to be had is an invention, and more than likely, only the weak or herd will aspire to "objective, absolute truth" in order to hide their psychological weaknesses.

~WiGGiN~

WJ

Wiggy!

Mmmm, well too, if god is dead, I suppose so is atheism. Otherwise, I'm still waiting for you to answer the original question.

Atheism, it now seems, feeds on the default or lack-of arguments from the objective view yet, you are trapped in a nonsensical argument when you choose to respond with any form of logic. As AJ alluded, your argument is self-refuting.

You cannot prove to the world that God does not exist(that which you intend to argue). Your knowledge is lacking.

What's your point?

Wally

Koyaanisqatsi

There is no requirement or necessity to "prove" to the world that a mythological creature factually exists.

Why would there be? Because other people claim it does exist?

Why would we shoulder somebody else's burden?