Philosoft

ansarthemystic,

In your opinion, is your suggestion the proper way to treat all poorly-defined letter-strings?

ansarthemystic

i'm not quite sure what you mean by " poorly-defined letter-strings...
all i was suggesting was that some of the atheists on here. stop passing themselves off as freethinkers!

to me a true freethinker is open to and accepts the notion that god does not exist and that god does indeed exist! a theist stating emphatically that there is a god is not a freethinker, but a close-minded thinker. likewise an atheist who says that there is definitely no god is also a close-minded thinker. it would be more productive to establish an accepted definiton of what god/agod is and then discuss the logical consequences of this "being's" existence/non-existence. this way we can all approach some "truth".
or we should just call ourselves agnostics (i.e. we don't care if god exists/doesn't exist, instead of atheists!

Philosoft

I think you are employing a woefully inaccurate definition of "freethinker."

<strong> This is not freethinking. This is sophistry.

<strong> Agreed, but we probably differ on the reasons for this.

<strong> The question begged here is that the atheist in question holds the opinion that there is no potential concept of God that could refer to an existing being. This, of course, is false.

<strong> I've yet to see a coherent a definition of 'God' and I've been looking for a long time. Have anything in mind? And why is it necessary for us "all" to "approach some 'truth'"?

<strong> Because I do care. It would be very profound if something we could reasonably call "God" did exist. Hell, it would be profound if only a concept of the thing existed! So far, nothing.

ansarthemystic

ahhhh....i like the way you think!
with that in mind i would like to know what your definition of a freethinker is since mine is woefully inaccurate, and i would also like you to define sophistry.

you wrote:The question begged here is that the atheist in question holds the opinion that there is no potential concept of God that could refer to an existing being. This, of course, is false.

this is true what you say but i have read posts on hear of atheists doing just that!

you wrote:I've yet to see a coherent a definition of 'God' and I've been looking for a long time. Have anything in mind? And why is it necessary for us "all" to "approach some 'truth'"?

I wish i did have a coherent definition!but since you stated that you do care
"Because I do care. It would be very profound if something we could reasonably call "God" did exist. Hell, it would be profound if only a concept of the thing existed! So far, nothing."

this why i think we "all", at least those on this board,should try and find some "truth" without stating that what we think is the absolute truth.

by the way why does it seem like we are the only ones who seem to care about this thread?

Philosoft

Freethinker: one who examines evidence on its own merits

Sophistry: reasoning sound in appearance only

<strong> Actually, you haven't. No atheist claims positive knowledge of the non-existence of god-concepts she's never even heard about.

<strong> [quote]I wish i did have a coherent definition!but since you stated that you do care
"Because I do care. It would be very profound if something we could reasonably call "God" did exist. Hell, it would be profound if only a concept of the thing existed! So far, nothing."

this why i think we "all", at least those on this board,should try and find some "truth" without stating that what we think is the absolute truth.

Sometimes people are uncomfortable with the word "truth." Would you agree there are some things that are objective? I think a coherent definition of God would be "objective." Unfortunately, I've seen exactly zero.

[qb]Honestly, much of what you've posted has been hashed and re-hashed around here. But you seem curious and you have something to say about definitions of "God," which, as basically a non-cognitivist, I am interested in. I've found few that are as adamantly non-cognitivist as myself when it comes down to it.

[ July 15, 2002: Message edited by: Philosoft ]</p>

ansarthemystic

I know what I have posted so far has been hashed and rehashed but to no real conclusion or solution. People are still making false claims, illogical assumptions, and ridiculously "sophistic" arguments!

Based on your definition of sophistry I can see why you considered my agruments above as sophistry. maybe I should have said that a freethinker is one who examines evidence on its own merits AND whose thinking is not clouded or impeded by preexisting biases. Sophistry is defined as subtly deceptive reasoning. SOPHISM is defined as the use of arguments that appear correct in form but are in fact invalid. Interestingly enough a SOPHIST is defined as 1. philosopher, thinker 2. a fallacious reasoner. AMAZING?!

YOU WROTE:"Actually, you haven't. No atheist claims positive knowledge of the non-existence of god-concepts she's never even heard about."

I am sorry but I have read posts( not on this thread)where "atheists" have claimed that no possible concept of god could describe a being that exists! i can't quote the person but you will have to trust me on this. however I still think that many atheists are in fact agnostics:

agnostic.1.one who not committed to believing in either the existence or nonexistence of God Or a god.
atheist.1. one who denies the existence of god or God.

You see there is no word I know of( maybe you can help me)for a person that lacks a theology.this "lack of theology" means that this person denies the existence of god because no current god concept is logical!

You see?! many people claiming to be atheists are not! the person without a theology is a freethinker! a theist can be a freethinker, however, if they are willing to explore the logic of all god concepts, including their own. a theist is also a freethinker if he accepts the possibiltiy that proper, logical investigation will lead them to believe that there is no god.There aren't many situatins that allow an atheist to be a freethinker!

YOU WROTE:"Sometimes people are uncomfortable with the word "truth." Would you agree there are some things that are objective? I think a coherent definition of God would be "objective."

You see, I put "truth" in quotations for a reason! I am not concerned with other people's level of comfort when it comes to "truth". I agree that some things are objective, but these things ARE "truth" not TRUTH( IF THERE IS SUCH A THING.Would you agree?

What is a cognitivist and a non-cognitivist? I want to see which one I am.....

agnostic

Theli

ansarthemystic...

I agree.

It's not?
What gave you this idea?

Get a life.

Don't agree, but keep going...

No, let's start with pushing the ENTER-button. Your text would become much more comprehensible if you did.

Yes, unfortunally there is no absolute definitions of the supposed god. You notice this when discussing with christians. They tend to gradually retract and blur out the definitions.

False. I have stated this before on the thread.
Things that don't exist leave no trace behind them, no evidence. We cannot find evidence that points directly to the nonexistence of X, we can only find evidence of the opposite of X.
And we can rule out X on the grounds that no evidence has been presented for X. And should consider X nonexistent until such evidence emerges.

The religions hold the definition of "god". The people who founded the religion were probably the ones who created the concept "god". If no evidence exists or has existed, the word "god" points at an imaginary being.

I'm impressed by the fact that you don't care. I think we all are.
But the problem still exist. If the word "god" was, and is associated to something lacking evidence then it stands for an imaginary being.
If we would find a being out in space having some(or all) of those attributes, only then can we reffer to "god" as a real existing being.

This one I agree with. If there is no evidence for God, he only exists as an imaginary being or a logic possibility.

Yes, I would think that is the most important quality of a free-thinker.
Something I hope all would adapt to.

Read above.
Freethinker doesn't mean "believe in everything that is possible". Freethinkers must also have some sort of logic structure. And not just drift off.

Philosoft

Yep, and thanks to the general quality of minds on this message board, most of the people you're talking about get called on it.

<strong> That last part might prove difficult.

<strong> [/quote]

<a href="http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=sophistry" target="_blank">I disagree.</a>

[qb] Not really, considering the origin of the word.

YOU WROTE:"Actually, you haven't. No atheist claims positive knowledge of the non-existence of god-concepts she's never even heard about."

<strong> I'm sure you have, but...

<strong> Oh I do, but your bringing it up as if it were some major flaw in atheistic reasoning was disingenouous. I've never seen an atheist claim this and I'm an atheist.

<strong> This is a silly definition, no? This describes apathy, not a philosophical position.

<strong> You're going to catch great hell if you take that as your primary definition of 'atheist' around here.

<strong> Not "a-theist"?

<strong> This definitely describes some people who self-identify as atheist. I don't think this qualifies as non-cognitivism.

<strong> You far overstate your case here. The atheists you refer to are exceedingly rare.

<strong> Both of which would describe most atheists.

<strong> I agree. Look for seebs, Rev. Joshua and HelenSL on this site for examples.

<strong> Again, most atheists don't subscribe to an overly dogmatic atheism as you seem to believe.

<strong> I would.

<strong> I call myself a non-cognitivist because, ultimately, I think the word "God" doesn't refer to anything (thus, cognitivists believe that "God" does refer to a concept). I believe people merely act as if the word "God" describes a thinkable proposition. That said, non-cognitivism is a difficult position to debate because all theists and even many atheists dismiss it a priori as, well, sophistry. It is very difficult indeed to convince people that they are discussing nothing because it doesn't make a whole lot of obvious sense. So the position I will most often take around here is traditionally atheistic.

[ July 16, 2002: Message edited by: Philosoft ]</p>

ansarthemystic

i apologize if my writing is somewhat unclear... i am much better at face2face conversation

i want to clarify my positon by saying that it is not philosophical thinking to arrive at the conclusion that there is a god or that there isn't a god without thoruoghly investigating both concepts. theists fail to realize that they can't prove the existence of god and atheists fail to realize that that they can't prove that their isn't a god. therefore clinging to one position makes one seem dogmatic!

i wrote: to arrive at the conclusion that there (absolutely) is no god is not rational or philosophical thinking.

however i should have added that to arrive at this same conclusion based on the available evidence and rejection of cureent god-concepts IS RATIONAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL THINKING!

YOU WROTE:"Yes, unfortunally there is no absolute definitions of the supposed god. You notice this when discussing with christians. They tend to gradually retract and blur out the definitions."

trust me christians have THE most irrational god-concept, but let's not go there unless a christian decides to!

YOU WROTE:"False. I have stated this before on the thread.Things that don't exist leave no trace behind them, no evidence. We cannot find evidence that points directly to the nonexistence of X, we can only find evidence of the opposite of X.
And we can rule out X on the grounds that no evidence has been presented for X. And should consider X nonexistent until such evidence emerges."

WHY ARE WE EVEN ARGUING? i agree with you that there is no evidence for the existence of X, However we cannot with absolute certainty testify to the nonexistence of X in much the same way we cannot testify to the absoulte existence of X. i was merely stating that there is no evidence for either side. we are dicussing the validity of god concepts and whether they corresopond to an actual being. so far all god concepts describe a hypothetical( imaginary) being, but this does not negate the POSSIBILTY of the existence of god. nor does it CONFIRM its nonexistence

YOU WROTE: "The religions hold the definition of "god". The people who founded the religion were probably the ones who created the concept "god". If no evidence exists or has existed, the word "god" points at an imaginary being."

THAT IS PRECISELY THE PROBLEM! because religions hold the definiton of god irrational thinking abounds! we need a rational, coherent, nonreligious definiton. then we can investigate if this "being" actually exists, not if this god POSSIBLY exists!possibly god exists and possibly god does not exist, but this doe not answer the question: does god exist?

YOU WROTE:Freethinker doesn't mean "believe in everything that is possible". Freethinkers must also have some sort of logic structure. And not just drift off.

THAT ISN'T WHAT I MEANT! SORRY IF IT CAME ACROSS THAT WAY.i believe that a freethinker bekieves in everything that is proven with sound reasining and logic.

ansarthemystic

i have to disagree. i think "god" does refer to something is people's minds. the question is whether that concept refers to an actual or imaginary being. tell me if my disagreement is based of a misunderstanding of what you wrote.

sorry but i was just stating what the dictionary gave as the definiton for those words( atheist, agnostic, sophistry, sophism) to see what you thought about them. i wasn't aligned myself with those definitions.