Bumble Bee Tuna

The point with Goliath's beliefs on the existence/nonexistence of gods: They do not exist. His beliefs, that is. He has no position regarding belief in gods. No belief that they don't exist, no belief that they do exist. No belief, period! Now, non-belief is of course the default position, so that makes him an atheist. I honestly don't see why this idea gives so many people trouble. Goliath is being very clear, not using muddled language at all. It's very simple:

He does not have any beliefs regarding the existence or nonexistence of gods.

-B

Soul Invictus

BBT,

if anything, what you said is clear language,than saying i do not believe that all gods do not exist. This sounds as if he recognizes gods and says that not all don't exist. It is muddled language, because I'm taking atheist as the default position. The writing style reads as if it's a contradiction. Besides, it would have been so easy to say what you said. If he doesn't want the misinterpretation of his text, then I would suggest he not write in the conventional argumentation and debate style of writing by stating his claims in that particular verbage then.

Soul Invictus

How is this incorrect? A belief is simply a mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something.

As I had stated, regardless of who bears the burden of proof atheists can no better prove God/gods don't exist ( or refute the existence of God) than the theists who believe in God/gods.

Let me ask you if this is a problematic statement for you.

If asked about your personal belief in the existence of God/gods your affiliation (excluding the enigmatic agnostic stance) is either

1) belief in the existence of God/gods OR
2) belief that there is no God/gods


IMO, so far there has not been the proverbial observation of God by man with tangible evidence, so therefore God is not an issue of fact, so that makes God an issue of opinion. If there is no substantiation of fact, that leaves only theories,beliefs,hypotheses, or any other various synonym that is used to define one's stance or opinion

wade-w

Keep it civil people.

Bumble Bee Tuna

If asked about your personal belief in the existence of God/gods your affiliation (excluding the enigmatic agnostic stance) is either

1) belief in the existence of God/gods OR
2) belief that there is no God/gods
3) no belief at all, but an assumption that God/gods do not exist because it's the default position.
4) no belief at all, because you believe that God/gods are inherently unknowable.(do not ask me to explain this to you, because the agnostic position really makes no sense to me)

Then you would have it.
1) theist
2) strong atheist
3) weak atheist
4) agnostic

Goliath is a weak atheist. I really don't see what he said that was unclear, though. If anything, I'd say he was far clearer than I.
This quote really did the trick for explaining it to me. Seems extremely clear, especially because the original had that enormous text emphasizing the most important part.

For the record, of course, I'm a strong atheist, just posting out of boredom since Goliath could surely defend himself better.

-B

Soul Invictus

BBT,
well since you're bored, I hope you don't mind speaking about it then. I am aware of strong/weak atheist inclinations...I'm missing how they have anything to do with my points. Not once had Goliath spoke on the passages I had written. I think my failing to define atheism with plural gods wasn't a material item of discussion.


about your choice number 3 - it doesn't address the issue of a personal stance. True the default position is to not believe, so if that is the stance a chooser of number 3 would pick then the fundamental choice would be my option 2.

about your choice number 4 - even if you believe that should a God exist, he/she/it would be unknowable, it does not assert that choosers stance either, so I'd be inclined to say that choosers of 3 and 4 would be nonresponsive to my direct question on their inclinations on their thoughts of the existence of God/gods...

Soul Invictus

will try

CJD

1. Goliath, I daresay you would not call me a liar if we were having a face-to-face encounter. Why do it from a distance? The burden lies on you to prove my malicious intent. I am no egalitarian. Though equal in human dignity, in society we are not peers. Casting aspersions is childish, and, like I mentioned previously, is entirely unbecoming for an educated man. But then, knowledge and wisdom are two entirely different things.

A careless shoe-string, in whose tie
I see a wild civility,—
Do more bewitch me, than when art
Is too precise in every part.

— R. Herrick, from "The Poetry of Dress"


2. It makes no difference whatsover if the hypothetical person's answer was 'honest.' The fact remains that 1) He/she could be fooling himself or herself; and 2) his/hers epistemic faculties may not be working properly (i.e., chemical imbalance, etc.). Well, of course, "one can perform actions that don't conform to one's beliefs." It happens all the time. But not with sincerity, and not perpetually consuming the individual's entire life. This does not destroy my argument. I am speaking of one's life holistically. You're just pointing out the obvious, and the need remains for you to get beyond the obvious and admit your criterion was inadequate.

3. In response to this: "Living like an atheist" simply means in this context one who does not pray, does not attend church; in short, one who does not attempt to follow Christ;" you wrote, "This definition is inadequate. Non-xian theists do not, in general, live their lives like atheists."

This was my point. They are theists. Of course they do not live like athiests. You must read me more carefully, I gather. Let me help you (written previously by me):

"God does not even factor in to the thoughts of an atheist. That is, after all, what an atheist is by definition. You live like an atheist. I live like a Christian. It's really that simple. Our actions speak accordingly."

"Two different atheists probably do lead totally different lives, but I'll bet neither one them prays, goes to church, etc. [with sincerity, that is, or else they would not be "atheists"]. I mean, why would they? They're atheists. They either disbelieve that a God exists, or are not yet convinced that a God exists (does my distinction make you happy?)."

"The differences between atheists on this point is moot, as are the differences between Protestants and Catholics. The point is, the lives in question depict a belief (or absence of belief) in a Supreme Being."

* I must say, in closing, that I find it increasingly curious that you (like many other youthful atheists) tend to avoid the actual meat of the argument, instead opting to trim the fat with hopes of showing logical inconsistency or something (the typical tap-dance). It would behoove you at this point to give that up, and deal with my argument meticulously, point-by-point. There is, of course, no shame in sticking to mathematics.

Regards,

CJD

Mageth

CJD wrote:

Mageth, I have defined the context within which I wrote. What you offered really adds nothing to the conversation, and is common knowledge. If your point was that such-and-so are not good markers of an atheist, well, that depends entirely on the situation that that criterion is being applied to. In other words, given my discussion with Goliath, it is a good marker. I had no intent of speaking some universal standard into the air. They are good markers insofar as they apply to the situation at hand.

Well, if you're using your markers in a context for a "situation at hand", what's up with the universal statement that you made:

Two different atheists probably do lead totally different lives, but I'll bet neither one them prays, goes to church, etc. I mean, why would they? They're atheists.

With that statement, you removed whatever "context" you were working in and extended your "markers" to all atheists. That's the point I was addressing. One or both of them may very well go to church, and may even pray in some form or other.

You wrote, "Living like an atheist" means, pure and simple, lacking belief in god. When I screw up, I don't think there's a god watching me. When I think, I don't think there's a god listening in. When I talk, I don't think there's a god listening. When good things happen to me, I don't think god's responsible. When bad things happen, I don't think there's a god to help. If anything's gonna get done, it's up to me to do it."

* Surely you see how this just proves my point. God does not even factor in to the thoughts of an atheist. That is, after all, what an atheist is by definition. You live like an atheist. I live like a Christian. It's really that simple. Our actions speak accordingly.

No, I don't see, and don't call me Shirley. I'm not really sure what your "point" is, actually.

And why does god not factor into the thoughts of an atheist? Because the atheist lacks belief in god(s). Why does god factor into the thoughts of a theist? Because the theist believes in god! And trying to judge what someone believes or doesn't believe by what they do is fraught with problems, and will likely result in wrong judgment as often as right. IIRC, even the bible says that only god knows the heart, can judge us by our heart, rather than (just) our actions.

And if you think ceremonies and rituals like praying and going to church are what makes you or distinguishes you as a Theist, I'd say your thinking is a bit flawed. An atheist can do those same things and remain an atheist. Someone claiming to be a Christian can do those things and not be a theist. Heck, there's atheistic priests in some churches. I personally attended church and prayed while in my heart an atheist. How do you know some of the people sitting with you in church on Sunday aren't like I was?

What makes one a theist or an atheist is what one believes or doesn't believe, not what one does. It's that simple.

CJD

Mageth, I need not be reminded of the obvious. What you say in your last post is true. There is no denying that. No thinking Xian would say the mere ceremony proves one's faith. Just be aware that as many times as the bible speaks of belief in God's promises, it speaks of knowing others by their fruit. You cannot deny this. No, it's not the ultimate criterion, but it can in no way be separated from the criterion, which is exactly what Goliath wants to do. That I cannot allow.

You wrote, "And why does god not factor into the thoughts of an atheist? Because the atheist lacks belief in god(s). Why does god factor into the thoughts of a theist? Because the theist believes in god!"

I totally agree. That was my point. Surely, you have it now.

I also don't see where we disagree, if at all. My argument with Goliath is simple "You live like an atheist. I live like a Christian. It's really that simple. Our actions speak accordingly." How this relates to beliefs or absence of beliefs is not for me to work out. I just think it undermines Goliath's position.

Regards,

CJD