SingleDad

Polycarp

This is a false claim, or rather the truth of this claim depends on a definition of "faith" that is idiosyncratic and not usually adhered to by nontheists. The "faith" of metaphysical naturalism is metaphysical, unlike the "faith" of theism, which is ontological. And the only metaphysical faith of MN is faith that my perceptions are actual perceptions, a proposition difficult, if not impossible, for even the theist to deny and that it is not meaningful to talk about ontological claims that cannot be verified perceptually, which, while not quite as self-evident as the properly basic and evidential truth of perception hardly seems controversial.

Again, this is false because the claim of atheism is not that the nonexistence of god is certainly true, but that various conceptions are either false or meaningless according to the known facts.

Polycarp, you've been here long enough to understand this elementary distinction.

[ December 19, 2001: Message edited by: SingleDad ]</p>

CX

What? Did you not read my post at all? It most certainly doesn't clarify anything except your misunderstanding of atheism. Faith is belief without evidence. Atheism is an absence of belief, AND NOTHING MORE. Thus since there can be no faith without belief, there can be no faith in atheism. Further more atheism makes no claims at all. That some atheists also claim that there is no god is irrelevant. The latter is not entailed by the former. To suggest as much is to misuse language.

That being said, saying that the Xian god does not exist as portrayed in the bible is not the same as saying there is no god. The former claim can be tested whereas, as I already said, the latter claim is essentially meaningless. One can be rationally justified in disbelieving in YHVH in the same way one can be rationally justified in disbelieving in Zeus. I would go so far as to say one can be rationally justified in asserting that there is no personal god that intervenes in human affairs. None of these claims requires omniscience anymore than claiming that the speed of light in a vacuum is always and everywhere 186,000 ft/sec.

The difference between a rationalistic worldview and a revelatory worldview is that conclusions in a rationalistic world view are tentative and based on the best available information. By and large revelatory worldviews are are absolute and based on some of the worst available information, namely ancient texts and personal feelings.

Earl

POLYCARP: See the replies of Mike Rosoft and Cowboy X in this thread. They clarify my point. The sole intention of my statement was to point out the fact that atheism depends on faith in the same way as theism does. Unless a person is omniscient, they are utilizing some measure of faith in adhering to atheism. As to the size of the claim involved, I guess it lies in the eye of the beholder.

EARL: Uh, Mike Rosoft simply raised the point about the burden of proof which has nothing to do with any alleged atheistic "faith." The point is that the atheist doesn't need to have any faith because he or she doesn't have the burden of proof in the first place. Cowbox X distinguished between strong and weak atheism, a distinction I find somewhat slippery but which in any case does little to support your point. Perhaps you should reread what's been written in this thread. Atheism cannot be dragged down to the level of theism in terms of a shared employment of "faith" rather than reasoned belief, because the burden of proof is unequal between the theist and atheist. Theism, being the positive position, has the burden of proof.

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by Earl: All you have to do is follow that line of reasoning to see its difficulty. How many other things do we call non-existent even though we're not omniscient? You're forgetting the burden of proof issue. I simply don't have the burden to show that unicorns don't exist. I'm justified in saying that their existence is improbable even though I'm not omniscient and I haven't searched through the whole universe for unicorns.

Red herring alert! Do the majority of sane humans today believe in the existence of unicorns? You’re comparing apples and Toyotas. I’m not saying that truth is determined by majority, BUT your analogy is flawed in that the overwhelming majority of people do believe there is evidence pointing to the existence of a god. Such is not the case with one-horned horse-like mammals.

You seem to be of the belief that only empirically-verifiable beliefs should be held. This is certainly false. Otherwise, the existence of other galaxies would have been a false belief prior to the invention of certain telescopes. The fact that a belief is unable to be proven empirically does not render it false.

Quote:

Atheists say that God is impossible rather than just improbable when "God" is defined in a logically contradictory way. Otherwise, God is as improbable as the unicorn and the burden of proof is the same. The fact that people actually believe that God but not the unicorn exists does not count as a non-fallacious reason to believe that God exists.

First, please tell me what is “logically contradictory” about the classic theistic definition of god. Second, there is nothing logically contradictory about the existence of unicorns. Neither is there anything logically contradictory about the existence of UFO’s, tooth fairies, or the Loch Ness monster. I don’t understand your point here.

Quote:

Notice the difference, by the way, between the appeal to Christianity's popularity and an appeal to the popularity of the statement that 2 + 2 = 4. In the case of mathematics no one makes the latter appeal. Rather the appeal is to the theorems, the axioms, and so forth. No one says "2 + 2 = 4 is true because everyone believes this is true." Rather there are irrefutable arguments in favour of this equation. The same is, of course, not at all true of the resurrection claim. Here there really is often just an appeal to popularity, which is fallacious and therefore weak evidence.

Another red herring alert ! Who said anything about the resurrection? I’m not going to chase this one.

Peace,

Polycarp

Polycarp

I’m not going to take the time to respond to a crowd of people, so I’ll try to clarify my point. I made my initial comment to get a reaction, and I was successful. It was never my intention to paint all skeptics with the same brush. Only “strong atheism” would fall under the umbrella of my critique.

If a person claims to “know” that god does not exist, then they would be guilty of hypocrisy (IMO). If the shoe doesn’t fit, then don’t worry. Those of you who don’t claim to know that god does not exist can rest assured that we’re in agreement.

So, do any of you claim to “know” that god does not exist? This was what I was trying to address.

Peace,

Polycarp

livius drusus

Do you have any idea what a pedestrian comment it was or how many times it has been repeated by your brethren on this board?

I don't even think you did post it just to get a reaction. You followed up on it (mildly incoherently, natch), by claiming that your intention was to underscore that faith is required for non-belief as much as for belief. Now that SingleDad, Earl and CowboyX have schooled you like a boy in short pants, you whip out the old "I was just looking for a reaction" chestnut.

I particularly like how easy it is for you to dismiss the well-thought out replies to your post by refusing to rebut them after your flaccid earlier attempts failed so miserably.

(Edited to correct a most hideous slip of the fingers. See below for the silly details.)

[ December 19, 2001: Message edited by: livius drusus ]</p>

CX

I don't want to be pedantic here, but the distinction between "strong" and "weak" atheism is fallacious. There is only atheism. That people misuse the word, and that incorrect prescriptions for usage are included in some dictionaries is irrelevant.

Theism comes from the Greek QEOS or "god" (the Greeks were not monotheistic so this could be any god or gods) and means "belief in god or gods" the Greek prefix -a can mean a number of things, no,not,without but generally denotes an absence of something rather than a simple negation (though it can mean that as well depending on the context). Therefore the most reasonable definition for atheism is "an absence of belief in god or gods."

It cannot reasonably be defined to mean the positive belief that there is no god. Consider the analog vis-a-vis morality. One can be moral (i.e. adhering to the moral precepts of one's own conscience or society). The opposite or negation of that is not amoral, but immoral. Amoral, and this is the significant point, only means undifferentiated with regard to morals, which is to say neither moral nor immoral. Atheism to come back to the comparison is analgous to the word amoral and can be thought to mean neither the belief that god exists nor the belief that god does not exist. There is no word for a rejection of the existence of god, but a more appropriate term would be antitheism, or distheism or maybe even untheism (though I admit that sounds silly). Some people use the word nontheism to distinguish, but this is mere equivocation and more than likely an attempt to avoid the stigma attached to atheism.

The lack of a belief in god or gods is rationally justifiable since it makes no positive claims and only one negative one. Namely I have no particular belief positive or negative with regard to god.

The rejection of god or the affirmation of god's nonexistence, on the other hand, is not just indefensible (according to the maxim that you cannot prove a negative), but meaningless unless god is further defined (i.e. I reject the Xian god or I reject the Hindu pantheon etc.)

Thus to reiterate, atheism entails no faith. Nor does it entail a positive statement of god's nonexistence. Furthermore rejection of a god in general is a meaningless statement and rejection of a specific god does not require omniscience.

QED

end note: The notion that "you cannot prove a negative" is itself a negative statement and consequently possibly true, but unproveable a la Kurt Godel. Therefore it is not sensible to invoke it in debate. Since it becomes an unproveable assumption in your argument which is clearly not simply axiomatic.

[ December 19, 2001: Message edited by: CowboyX ]</p>

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by livius drusus: Do you have any idea what a pedestrian comment it was or how many times it has been repeated by your brethren on this board? I don't even think you did post it just to get a reaction. You followed up on it (mildly incoherently, natch), by claiming that your intention was to underscore that faith is required for non-belief as much as for belief. Now that SingleDad, Earl and Polycarp have schooled you like a boy in short pants, you whip out the old "I was just looking for a reaction" chestnut. I particularly like how easy it is for you to dismiss the well-thought out replies to your post by refusing to rebut them after your flaccid earlier attempts failed so miserably.

ROFL...

Do you have any idea how confused you are? "Now that SingleDad, Earl, and Polycarp have schooled..."

That's hilarious. Figure out who you're talking to before typing.

Polycarp

livius drusus

My deepest apologies to CowboyX, who most certainly never deserved to be mistaken for Polycarp even in the heat of typing passion. I will edit it so he doesn't have to go through that kind of pain.

Polycarp, your reply to me was as puerile and insubstantial as the rest of your postings to this thread. But it's nice that you can still laugh at typos. Suffer the little children and all that.

CX

There are worse things than being mistaken for the many fished one (I still love that). He at least makes coherent, if incorrect, statements. Much worse if you had thought I was Offa or Amos. Then I really would be offended.