Vorkosigan

In any case, Linuxpup is also wrong about Websters. The Websters Collegiate online says:

• Main Entry: athe·ism
  Pronunciation: 'A-thE-"i-z&m
  Function: noun
  Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
  Date: 1546
  1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
  2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

In fact, definition (a) is the one Snedden was discussing above.

From Dictionary.com
a·the·ism (th-zm)
n.

Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
Godlessness; immorality.

Having done this before, I can assure Linuxpup that most dictionaries give these two definitions, corresponding to the "weak" and "strong" atheist positions.

Vorkosigan

Typhon

Hello LinuxPup

I can tell you this is not the case, neither from a cognitive science point of view, or from a neurological/behavioral perspective, or even a biological one. You are incorrect in this assumption.

Yes, Evolution "doesn't care" about your beliefs and desires, but what your beliefs and desires are do make a difference if you are to survive and pass on your genes. What of it? The sun does not care about the reaction occurring at its heart, but it has a great deal to do with the lifecycle of the sun.

Also, I would recommend a good book on evolutionary biology, if you've not had much reading in the field. Your definition of natural selection is wanting. You seem to be confusing natural selection with the oft misunderstood phrase, survival of the fitness. Natural selection is not just about who survives, it is about how naturally occurring variation between individuals can change the resulting populations who have those variations, and how many offspring they have.

check out

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html" target="_blank">http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html</a>

or

<a href="http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/" target="_blank">http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/</a>

for places to get started. They're good, solid sites, written for an average reader who doesn't necessarily have a rigorous background in the biological sciences. Anyway, leaving aside your definition of natural selection, let's move on.

I would recommend you read God and the Burden of Proof , by Keith Parsons, which contains some fine examples of what is wrong with many of Alvin Plantinga's claims. However, for the following, I am more than able to show you error of this particular example and line of thinking.

I'm sorry LinuxPup, but that is a poor argument at best. All the behavior you've given in your examples above, are highly flawed. Here is just a few reasons why:

1. I don't know the difference between things that are dangerous to me (a tiger) and things that are not. I die. I don't pass on my genes. Even worse, I do not know that the way to get closer isn't to move away from an object. I would have perished long, long before I ever encountered my first tiger. I die. I don't pass on my genes.

2. I have a desire to die, for whatever reason. If it is sincere, there are many ways to do this. Jungles are full of tigers, I get my wish quickly. If I have not bred, then I die, and I don't pass on my genes.

3. I can not tell reality from illusion. Again, I would have never survived to adulthood. I die, I don't pass on my genes. This one is particularly nasty, as unless this is limited purely to tigers, I would have an impossible time of navigating through the most basic of life-affecting choices. Oh, that chasm isn't therrrrrrrrr. Fire isn't reeeeeeeeel. That's not a tig. Also, weight loss was not likely an issue for our distant ancestors, except for seeking ways to prevent it. My strange compulsion to anachronistically "exercise" deprives me of the necessary calories and body fat to survive the dry season. I die, I don't pass on my genes.

4. Too bad the track is circular. The tiger takes me as I loop back towards the finish/starting line, proving once again the necessity for knowing reality from unreality. I die, I don't pass on my genes.

Nonsense I'm afraid. To even begin to make this example work, you'd have to presuppose a universe where only two or so things existed at any one time. Behavior and survival depends on a complex and interdependent web of sensory input and conditions.

Your example wouldn't even be true if the world was only filled with just two things, us and tigers. Not knowing threat T, no matter what "belief/desire" you want to hold, will result in non-survival in a world where T exists and is capable of ending our survival, means that we either learn to distinguish T, and react accordingly, or else we die, and we don't pass on our genes.

You've tried to sketch a scenario where the organism in question is unable to do the following:

Tell a juvenile of a potentially dangerous, predatory species from an adult.
Distinguish the difference from moving away from an object as opposed to towards it.
Understand what is imagined in its own mind to what is present in its environment.

And possess the most un-likely of traits such as:
The desire to achieve self-extinction (you don't provide much information in your example, so I have to assume this is before breeding and not in the face of some illness, mental aberration, or social impetus. Just that your subject wakes up, and decides to go find the biggest tiger to be eaten by, which makes me wonder as well, how do you know which tiger is the absolute biggest? Do you just settle for big, and why, do you want to be eaten in the first place?)
Voluntary weight loss, which is dodging considering our ancestors and most life forms on this planet have great difficulty procuring sufficient calories for life.
Etc.
You have been able to shown nothing of the sort. Again, please provide an argument that shows why atheism is irrational. You have only shown that you yourself can think illogically. That is nice, but it doesn't prove your point in this case.

Even if you could show that the brain worked this way, which you have not been able to, not surprisingly, you would still need to show why all you are "left with (is) an Intelligent Designer."

However, before you do, you should address the other issues at hand, as I suppose if you can not, it is meaningless to argue the next.

.T.

Goliath

LinuxPup

And I should care because.....?

Again, we are atheists. We get to define atheism, not you.

Oh, and there are dictionaries that take into account the differences between strong and weak atheism.

No. Since I am a weak atheist, I hold no such belief.

In fact, here is a complete list of things that I believe regarding the supernatural:

Nothing.

....huh? It is a verifiable fact that I have made no claims as to the existence or nonexistence of a god. Since I have made no such claims, I have no burden of proof.

Are you intentionally refusing to understand the simple concept that atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief?

Sincerely,

Goliath

LinuxPup

It's not my definition, and it was defined long before you were born.

So you say you do not believe that God does not exist. You must then, according the Law of Non-Contradiction, a first principle of logic, believe that God does indeed exist. Using your logic I can say:

I am a Christian, but Christianity is not a belief, it's the lack of a belief. It's the lack of belief in Atheism. Also, 1 + 1 does not equal 2, but rather it equals no numbers except for 2.

This is obviously ridiculous. Truth by it's very nature is exclusive. If you say "I exist", you are OBVIOUSLY believing that "I don't exist" is a false statement.

Pomp

LinuxPup,

So you say you do not believe that God does not exist. You must then, according the Law of Non-Contradiction, a first principle of logic, believe that God does indeed exist.

Not so. The law of noncontradiction simply states that A and ~A cannot simultaneously be true. Let A be "X has property P." It seems clear that ~A is "X does not have property P." Now, let property P be "belief in the existence of a god." A becomes "X has belief in the existence of a god." Thus, ~A becomes "X does not have belief in the existence of a god." This does not imply that X holds a positive belief that there is no god, merely that X holds no positive belief in the existence of a god.

Here's another example, taken from a classic post here some time ago:

Do you believe that I had pizza for dinner last night? If not, do you necessarily believe that I did not have pizza for dinner last night, or do you simply hold no positive beliefs regarding what I ate for dinner last night?

Vorkosigan

It's not my definition, and it was defined long before you were born.

I have already put up the actual entry from Websters, which decisively refuted your claim, as well as entries from another dictionary. Will you now withdraw this bogus claim you are making above?

Vorkosigan

Principia

This conversation is like a recent one I had explaining to a 10 year old why black is the absence of color, even though Crayola has a crayon labeled 'black.'

BTW, black is the absence of color. But there is a crayon that 'colors' black onto paper. Rack your brain over that, linuxpup.

SC

[ May 05, 2002: Message edited by: Scientiae ]</p>

Goliath

LinuxPup

Irrelevant. The definition is still incorrect.

Correct.

Don't lecture me on logic, boy. I'm a graduate student in Mathematics.

Now, the Zermelo-Frankel axiom of set theory (also known as the Principle of Non-Contradiction) applies to the proposition that "a god exists"--either a god exists, or it does not.

However, concerning the conditions "a god exists" and "no god exists," I need not BELIEVE either of these statements. Frankly, I will not believe either of the above conditions until someone proves one of them.

Again, exactly one of the two statements ("a god exists," and "no god exists") is true. However, as a skeptic, I need not believe either of them until a proof is provided.

Sincerely,

Goliath

Edited to add this very important point: The Zermelo-Frankel axiom of set theory only applies to sets and elements. It does not apply to beliefs.

Edited a second time to address this:

xianity involves belief in the xian god. You are therefore demonstrably wrong, LinuxPup.

[ May 05, 2002: Message edited by: Goliath ]

[ May 05, 2002: Message edited by: Goliath ]</p>

LinuxPup

Exactly. That statement is using absurd logic. And you seem to believe one of the following:

1) "I believe God does not exist" (classic atheism)

2) "I believe that I don't believe that God does not exist" (this is what you claim)

3) "I believe that I have no beliefs concerning God's existance one way or another"

Anyway you slice it, you're stuck with a belief.

So you claim to be in the middle ground, that is, not believing in God, but also not denying the possibility (as you said you do not believe that God does not exist) that God exists. That sounds more agnostic than atheist.

Within light, black is the absence of color, and white is the combination of many colors. In pigment, black is the combination of many colors, and light is the absence of color. For what it's worth...

This is standard agnosticism. It's important to note that most definitions of an atheist actually "deny" God's existance. However according to your definition, your atheism can be a subset of agnosticism. For the agnostic does not believe in God, but he does not deny God's existance either. So it seems to me that by most definitions, you're an agnostic, but according to your own definition of atheism, you're both an atheist and an agnostic.

Goliath

LinuxPup,

Again, you fail to grasp the extremely simple idea that I have repeated atleast 6-8 times in this thread: atheism is nothing more than a LACK of belief. What part of that do you not understand?

No, I don't believe that I don't believe that a god exists. I either believe that a god exists, or I don't believe that a god exists (and that is true by the Zermelo-Frankel axiom of set theory).

However, that does not mean that I have to believe that a god does exist or believe that a god does not exist.

Again, here is a complete list of things that I believe regarding anything supernatural:

Nothing.

Oh, and as far as agnosticism goes, agnostics make the claim that it is impossible to know whether or not a god exists. I am not an agnostic, since I do not make any claim whatsoever as to whether it is possible to know the existence status of a god.

Sincerely,

Goliath