Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jayhawker Soule · 06-23-2002, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Messiah:
From what I have seem on these pages I think Stong Atheism is almost as unhelpful as Religion. However, before I can make such a pugalistic statement I need a definition of Strong Atheism.

Why. You obviously didn't find it necessary to wait before reaching your (preliminary) conclusion. So, rather than trolling for definitions, why not supply yours and then tell us (1) why, given your definition, "Strong Atheism" is "unhelpful", and (2) whatyou mena by that?

By the way, is the intent to make "a pugalistic statement"?

The Messiah · 06-23-2002, 08:19 AM

Quote: himynameisPwn

Strong atheists beleive god definitely does not exist.

-------------------------------------------------

I really don't think the "definitely" has any bearing. It seems to me that the defintion is not a defintion at all because god remains undefined. The definition of God in the dictionary, as you can imagine, is quite extensive. All definitions in the dictionary for God fit the bill for being something an atheist would think false, but this defintion itself refers to human relgions which mean it would appear to be valid to substitute 'Human Religion' for 'God' and have a more accurate definition.

This is really about applying the scientic method the debate. It would appear that the optimum definition of an atheist, regardless of strength, should be

'A person that believes that all human religions, in existence, are fabrications."

cricket · 06-23-2002, 08:25 AM

Quote:

'A person that believes that all human religions, in existence, are fabrications."

What about religious practices that don't involve a belief in gods? Must we necessarily think their beliefs are 'fabrications'? They may be (or may not be) but why go there at all?

What's wrong with the usual definition of atheism? (atheism = lack of belief in gods)

[ June 23, 2002: Message edited by: cricket ]

Mad Kally · 06-23-2002, 08:25 AM

This is my favorite quote:

Quote:

"I certainly can't see any sensible position to assume aside from that of complete scepticism tempered by a leaning toward that which existing evidence makes most probable. All I say is that I think it is damned unlikely that anything like a central cosmic will, a spirit world , or an eternal survival of personality exist. They are the most preposterous and unjustified of all the guesses which can be made about the universe, and I am not enough of a hair-splitter to pretend that I don't regard them as arrant and negligble moonshine. In theory I am an agnostic, but pending the appearance of rational evidence I must be classed, practically and provisionally, as an atheist. The chance's of theism's truth being to my mind so microscopically small, I would be a pedant and a hypocrite to call myself anything else."

--H.P. Lovecraft

cricket · 06-23-2002, 08:32 AM

Quote:

They are the most preposterous and unjustified of all the guesses which can be made about the universe...

Exactly. When people ask me "how can you *not* believe?" i really wonder what they're smoking.

The Messiah · 06-23-2002, 08:42 AM

Quote ReasonableDoubt

Why. You obviously didn't find it necessary to wait before reaching your (preliminary) conclusion. So, rather than trolling for definitions, why not supply yours and then tell us (1) why, given your definition, "Strong Atheism" is "unhelpful", and (2) whatyou mena by that?

--------------------------------------------------

(1) My defintion of Strong Athesim would be someone that believes that the question posed by Philosoft

"Would you believe in God if you were given 1) a plausible, non-contradictory definition; 2) empirical evidence or airtight logical proof of his existence?"

can never be formulated, i.e. there can never be a plauible, non-contradictory definiton of God and/or empirical evidence or and airtight logical proof could never be obtained, as Greg2003 pointed out. This position can only be based upon faith and not proof, unless you reduce the definition of God to say "my Hamster is God" and I have proof of his existence, look there he's in his cage. Which means the definition for God is irrelevent it is the content of religion that an atheist disagrees with not the non-existance of God.

(2) What I mean by this is that if you approach a theist with the premise that 'God does not exist' and not 'your definition of God does not exist' then you instigate an unsolveable conflict and this, I don't think is helpful.

And what wrong with trolling for a definition, I think its prefectly valid to check one's assumptions.

The Messiah · 06-23-2002, 09:00 AM

Quote cricket:

What about religious practices that don't involve a belief in gods? Must we necessarily think their beliefs are 'fabrications'? They may be (or may not be) but why go there at all?

--------------------------------------------------

A couple of points I think are worth mentioning.

1) If one wanted to find out the value of g on this planet you wouldn't throw a lot balls up in the air and try and guess what g is from there movements. You would isolate a single ball establish its characteristics and construct an experiment to deduce g from its postion and speed in free fall. This pretty much the same thing if you want to define athesim or strong atheism one must study it under specific conditions to establish a rule that can be applied to more general situations.

2) I think that is a very important point. If the defintion is to be shifted, how is religion to be defined. What's more does the argument become cyclical i.e. should the definition be modified to state that only religions that involve the belief in a God. This may just mean that the definition will not be succint but at least it would be specific.

The Messiah · 06-23-2002, 09:19 AM

MadKelly,

How long ago did H.P.Lovecraft make this statement?

I ask because I read Brian Greene's "The elegant Universe" and Paul Davies "The Mind of God" recently. The impression I got from this was that M theory may well turn out to be a good "Theory of Everything" model although we won't know for a few decades yet. Both authours expressed a genuine surprise at the elegance of the model and felt that the model itself would require some explaining. The point I am trying to make is that although the universe shows some indications of having been designed we can make no assumptions about the source of this system whatsoever. Wheras I agree with Lovecraft that all the defintions of God I have encountered sound proposterous to me, I cannot draw any conclusions at all about why and how such a system could come about. One could easily say that this is a Natural phenomenon but this immediately leads to what we mean by Natural. Is Nature self designing? Is this possible without intelligence? What's intelligence? and so on and so on. All we have is questions and not answers so the agnostic position is the only one that seems valid.

Mad Kally · 06-23-2002, 09:23 AM

Quote:

How long ago did H.P.Lovecraft make this statement?

It doesn't make any difference to me if it was written by ancient cave dwellers. It's still IMO right on target.

Jayhawker Soule · 06-23-2002, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by The Messiah:
(1) ... there can never be a plauible, non-contradictory definiton of God and/or empirical evidence or and airtight logical proof could never be obtained ... (2) if you approach a theist with the premise that 'God does not exist' and not 'your definition of God does not exist' then you instigate an unsolveable conflict and this, I don't think is helpful.

And what wrong with trolling for a definition, I think its prefectly valid to check one's assumptions.

I don't understand your definition, and I certainly don't agree with your conclusion. My rejection of God has absolutely nothing to do with specifics: I don't reject the Goddess Sarasvati, on the one hand, because I don't believe in female dieties with four hands, and YHWH, on the other, because I don't like ill-tempered old men with beards. On the contrary, I reject God because of the presumed supernatural quality shared by both.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-23-2002, 08:19 AM	#12
The Messiah Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Port Elizabeth, South Africa Posts: 70	Quote: himynameisPwn Strong atheists beleive god definitely does not exist. ------------------------------------------------- I really don't think the "definitely" has any bearing. It seems to me that the defintion is not a defintion at all because god remains undefined. The definition of God in the dictionary, as you can imagine, is quite extensive. All definitions in the dictionary for God fit the bill for being something an atheist would think false, but this defintion itself refers to human relgions which mean it would appear to be valid to substitute 'Human Religion' for 'God' and have a more accurate definition. This is really about applying the scientic method the debate. It would appear that the optimum definition of an atheist, regardless of strength, should be 'A person that believes that all human religions, in existence, are fabrications."

06-23-2002, 08:42 AM	#16
The Messiah Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Port Elizabeth, South Africa Posts: 70	Quote ReasonableDoubt Why. You obviously didn't find it necessary to wait before reaching your (preliminary) conclusion. So, rather than trolling for definitions, why not supply yours and then tell us (1) why, given your definition, "Strong Atheism" is "unhelpful", and (2) whatyou mena by that? -------------------------------------------------- (1) My defintion of Strong Athesim would be someone that believes that the question posed by Philosoft "Would you believe in God if you were given 1) a plausible, non-contradictory definition; 2) empirical evidence or airtight logical proof of his existence?" can never be formulated, i.e. there can never be a plauible, non-contradictory definiton of God and/or empirical evidence or and airtight logical proof could never be obtained, as Greg2003 pointed out. This position can only be based upon faith and not proof, unless you reduce the definition of God to say "my Hamster is God" and I have proof of his existence, look there he's in his cage. Which means the definition for God is irrelevent it is the content of religion that an atheist disagrees with not the non-existance of God. (2) What I mean by this is that if you approach a theist with the premise that 'God does not exist' and not 'your definition of God does not exist' then you instigate an unsolveable conflict and this, I don't think is helpful. And what wrong with trolling for a definition, I think its prefectly valid to check one's assumptions.

06-23-2002, 09:00 AM	#17
The Messiah Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Port Elizabeth, South Africa Posts: 70	Quote cricket: What about religious practices that don't involve a belief in gods? Must we necessarily think their beliefs are 'fabrications'? They may be (or may not be) but why go there at all? -------------------------------------------------- A couple of points I think are worth mentioning. 1) If one wanted to find out the value of g on this planet you wouldn't throw a lot balls up in the air and try and guess what g is from there movements. You would isolate a single ball establish its characteristics and construct an experiment to deduce g from its postion and speed in free fall. This pretty much the same thing if you want to define athesim or strong atheism one must study it under specific conditions to establish a rule that can be applied to more general situations. 2) I think that is a very important point. If the defintion is to be shifted, how is religion to be defined. What's more does the argument become cyclical i.e. should the definition be modified to state that only religions that involve the belief in a God. This may just mean that the definition will not be succint but at least it would be specific.

06-23-2002, 09:19 AM	#18
The Messiah Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Port Elizabeth, South Africa Posts: 70	MadKelly, How long ago did H.P.Lovecraft make this statement? I ask because I read Brian Greene's "The elegant Universe" and Paul Davies "The Mind of God" recently. The impression I got from this was that M theory may well turn out to be a good "Theory of Everything" model although we won't know for a few decades yet. Both authours expressed a genuine surprise at the elegance of the model and felt that the model itself would require some explaining. The point I am trying to make is that although the universe shows some indications of having been designed we can make no assumptions about the source of this system whatsoever. Wheras I agree with Lovecraft that all the defintions of God I have encountered sound proposterous to me, I cannot draw any conclusions at all about why and how such a system could come about. One could easily say that this is a Natural phenomenon but this immediately leads to what we mean by Natural. Is Nature self designing? Is this possible without intelligence? What's intelligence? and so on and so on. All we have is questions and not answers so the agnostic position is the only one that seems valid.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.