Australian Politics Forum - agnosticism vs atheism

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: agnosticism vs atheism
Reply #315 - Apr 2^nd, 2010 at 10:45am

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2010 at 10:09am:

However, when the theist makes claims about this existential mindset - this feeling of god - such as “This god, that I’m experiencing, exists in fact, independently of my mind”, then they have crossed the line.

Do you hold that every idea you have about the wider world is only applicable to you? When we speak about ho we comprehend the world we all cross that kind of line.

Quote:

When they go even further to say “And I know what he is thinking and what he wants of us”, then they are making claims that irritate those who must listen to this absurd claim.

When he then goes on to say, “And he does not want you eating pork”, he has become obnoxious.

And, finally when he says “And if you eat pork, I will be forced to kill you”, he has become psychotic – A mind poisoned by theism. Or would a better term be "theomania"?

I am with you on all these. But I think atheists are also perfectly capable of the same sort of obnoxious manias.

Extreme social progressives, for example, have retained the redemptive elements of Christianity and proclaim that, for example, imposing scientifically justified rules is incontestable. They don't say 'don't eat pork', but with the same self-rightous craze they will say 'turn off your lights during Earth Hour'.
Some people project their manias into 'god' others onto something else. The urge and the zeal to be in the dominant camp is the common ground, God is peripheral. Many atheists are intellectually too lazy, smug or obnoxious to realise this. This makes others perceive them as little different from the religious nutters.

Back to top

IP Logged

NorthOfNorth

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male

Re: agnosticism vs atheism
Reply #316 - Apr 2^nd, 2010 at 10:52am

Soren wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2010 at 10:45am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2010 at 10:09am:

However, when the theist makes claims about this existential mindset - this feeling of god - such as “This god, that I’m experiencing, exists in fact, independently of my mind”, then they have crossed the line.

Do you hold that every idea you have about the wider world is only applicable to you? When we speak about ho we comprehend the world we all cross that kind of line.

Not where we acknowledge that we may be wrong - about our beliefs being independent of one's mind.

Back to top

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged

muso Gold Member Offline Posts: 13151 Gladstone, Queensland Gender:	Re: agnosticism vs atheism Reply #317 - Apr 2^nd, 2010 at 11:01am Grendel wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2010 at 10:25am: Since when have all Theists had a "God" experience? (Muso - off the planet, perhaps milking those cows on Mars) A lot of theists claim to know god in some way. Some actually have conversations with god, especially evangelicals. (don't laugh)
Back to top	1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not IP Logged

NorthOfNorth

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male

Re: agnosticism vs atheism
Reply #318 - Apr 2^nd, 2010 at 11:04am

freediver wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2010 at 10:40am:

Quote:

I have never met an “atheist” yet who, in his atheism, intends his listeners to infer that he believes in the existence of nothingness - that nothingness has substance. And I would bet my house that you haven’t either.

Neither have I. What makes you think this is my argument?

Then if no one actually believes in nothing(ness) having substance, then atheism is not “a believing-in the non-existence of god”, it is disbelieving the proposition that god exists.

freediver wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2010 at 10:40am:

Quote:

The “atheists” position arises solely from the theist’s proposition that god exists.

So it is a faith based belief that has no supporting evidence?

It is a disbelief. Disbelief is not attributively the same as having faith.

freediver wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2010 at 10:40am:

Quote:

And the absence of god in this context is?

So around and around we go.

I don't see why we have to keep going round. Why not just stop with 'there is no God'? I don't think anyone is confused by that statement.

That statement is the basis for the claim that atheism is irrational.

Were you to agree that when you use the statement “atheists believe there is no god”, you are not making the claim that “atheism is a believing-in the non-existence of god, such that it is a believing-in the existence of non-existence”, then that would be fine. Although, it is more accurate to say “atheism is disbelieving that god exists”.

freediver wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2010 at 10:40am:

Quote:

Would we not then be expending most of our brain power believing in the absence of everything that we have no reason whatsoever to think about otherwise? Like say, Schneetbork the Diluvian Schnoo?

I don't see why. It doesn't take much brain power to hold on to a belief.

It is when faced with the absurdity of believing-in the existence of non-existence – that nothingness has substance.

freediver wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2010 at 10:40am:

Are you actually claiming that it is not possible to be an atheist, according to the common and philosophical definition I gave?

I am claiming that "atheism" is disbelieving the proposition that god exists. It is nothing more than that.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Apr 2^nd, 2010 at 11:09am by NorthOfNorth »

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged

NorthOfNorth

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male

Re: agnosticism vs atheism
Reply #319 - Apr 2^nd, 2010 at 11:08am

Soren wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2010 at 10:45am:

Quote:

When they go even further to say “And I know what he is thinking and what he wants of us”, then they are making claims that irritate those who must listen to this absurd claim.

When he then goes on to say, “And he does not want you eating pork”, he has become obnoxious.

And, finally when he says “And if you eat pork, I will be forced to kill you”, he has become psychotic – A mind poisoned by theism. Or would a better term be "theomania"?

I am with you on all these. But I think atheists are also perfectly capable of the same sort of obnoxious manias.

Extreme social progressives, for example, have retained the redemptive elements of Christianity and proclaim that, for example, imposing scientifically justified rules is incontestable. They don't say 'don't eat pork', but with the same self-rightous craze they will say 'turn off your lights during Earth Hour'.
Some people project their manias into 'god' others onto something else. The urge and the zeal to be in the dominant camp is the common ground, God is peripheral. Many atheists are intellectually too lazy, smug or obnoxious to realise this. This makes others perceive them as little different from the religious nutters.

True, but this human trait does not manifest due to atheism.

Back to top

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: agnosticism vs atheism
Reply #320 - Apr 2^nd, 2010 at 11:15am

freediver wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2010 at 10:40am:

God is defined in a cognitively meaningful way. Otherwise we couldn't talk about it so easily. Here you go - an online cure for ignositicism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God

Sorry, but it doesn't say anything about Prince Phillip or Sri Ganesha there. That definition seems to be confined to a very specific type of god. If you are talking about atheism in general as opposed to just disbelief in a supreme cosmic pizza then you can't use that definition.

Once again, an atheist doesn't believe in gods. Gods are apparently supernatural entities that people call gods* - they have supernatural powers. Nobody has yet defined supernatural in a cognitively meaningful way, so we've come up with an error and the whole "God exists' application has just crashed.

*To expand on that, let's take the concept of angels in Christian mythology for example - In Roman mythology, angels would be regarded as minor deities (similar to the Lares).

I could try substituting nonsensical. Gods have nonsensical powers? Is that what you mean?

Sorry, but I don't believe that you can define god(s) in a cognitively meaningful way.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

NorthOfNorth

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male

Re: agnosticism vs atheism
Reply #321 - Apr 2^nd, 2010 at 11:23am

muso wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2010 at 11:15am:

Nobody has yet defined supernatural in a cognitively meaningful way

They, through the exercise of their will, can subvert any and all natural law. The long dead can be reconstituted and be resurrected, mountains and pigs can fly, the sun can be stopped in its tracks, do a loop-de-loop and move east... All by the will of gods.

Back to top

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51184
At my desk.

disbelief
Reply #322 - Apr 2^nd, 2010 at 11:26am

Paella wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2010 at 12:02am:

Call me old fashioned, but I tend to rely on the good old OED, which kicks off simply by saying that atheism is "disbelief in the existence of God".

I could get the OED online. However, I did find this:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-definitions.html

Here is how the OED defines "atheism":

atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.

For those who think that 'disbelief' somehow clarifies the issue, it doesn't. It merely puts the same question about atheism onto desbelief. Disbelief can mean rejection or scepticism.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: agnosticism vs atheism
Reply #323 - Apr 2^nd, 2010 at 11:26am

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2010 at 11:08am:

Soren wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2010 at 10:45am:

Quote:

When they go even further to say “And I know what he is thinking and what he wants of us”, then they are making claims that irritate those who must listen to this absurd claim.

When he then goes on to say, “And he does not want you eating pork”, he has become obnoxious.

And, finally when he says “And if you eat pork, I will be forced to kill you”, he has become psychotic – A mind poisoned by theism. Or would a better term be "theomania"?

I am with you on all these. But I think atheists are also perfectly capable of the same sort of obnoxious manias.

Extreme social progressives, for example, have retained the redemptive elements of Christianity and proclaim that, for example, imposing scientifically justified rules is incontestable. They don't say 'don't eat pork', but with the same self-rightous craze they will say 'turn off your lights during Earth Hour'.
Some people project their manias into 'god' others onto something else. The urge and the zeal to be in the dominant camp is the common ground, God is peripheral. Many atheists are intellectually too lazy, smug or obnoxious to realise this. This makes others perceive them as little different from the religious nutters.

True, but this human trait does not manifest due to atheism.

Indeed, and my point exactly - it is unfair to blame 'god' for our every mendacious urge and action. Violent anti-clericalism and atheism does this, however. This is its massive blind spot and this is what makes it unacceptable to me. It misleads those who sign up to it into thinking that they are now objectively free of the worst excesses of savagery. They bask in some smug virtuousness that is completely misplaced.

ATheists and anti-clericals are not galvanised into direct action, they do not take on a personal burden for the 'greater good', they are not driven to a saintly life. AT most they call for government action and scientifically-based government ukase on the populace. And you can see where I am going with pointing out this psychological displacement...

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 51184 At my desk.	Re: agnosticism vs atheism Reply #324 - Apr 2^nd, 2010 at 11:27am Helian, are you merely arguing tha theism (according to the common and philosophical definitions) is irrational. Or are you arguing that it is impossible? Or are you arguing the ignositic viewpoint? You are having remarkable difficulty explaining yourself.
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

NorthOfNorth

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male

Re: agnosticism vs atheism
Reply #325 - Apr 2^nd, 2010 at 11:33am

Soren wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2010 at 11:26am:

Indeed, and my point exactly - it is unfair to blame 'god' for our every mendacious urge and action. Violent anti-clericalism and atheism does this, however. This is its massive blind spot and this is what makes it unacceptable to me. It misleads those who sign up to it into thinking that they are now objectively free of the worst excesses of savagery. They bask in some smug virtuousness that is completely misplaced.

That would say more about the psychology of the individual than "atheism".

Soren wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2010 at 11:26am:

ATheists and anti-clericals are not galvanised into direct action, they do not take on a personal burden for the 'greater good', they are not driven to a saintly life.

Do you actually mean to tell me that Fred Hollows did not take on a personal burden for the 'greater good'? That he was not driven to a saintly life?

Back to top

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: agnosticism vs atheism
Reply #326 - Apr 2^nd, 2010 at 11:34am

freediver wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2010 at 10:40am:

You point out that Phillip was the only God he was previously aware of, however this does not remove the ambiguity, as you did not clarify whether the person rejected the particular form of God he previously believed in, or rejected the entire concept of God.

The (only) form of god he previously believed in was Prince Phillip. Now he doesn't believe in Prince Phillip and he hasn't substituted any other Gods, such as Prince Harry for example. Is that clear?

I don't see what the problem is. Logically he must be an atheist by your definition and the broader definition.

From your standpoint he has been aware of the concept of god in that he believed in Prince Phillip. He now rejects the premise that Prince Phillip is a god.

In the same way, a member of a primitive tribe which worship forest gods would be an atheist if he ceased believing in their magical powers and didn't substitute anything else that he would call a god (for example, money Grin

).

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: agnosticism vs atheism
Reply #327 - Apr 2^nd, 2010 at 11:34am

muso wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2010 at 11:15am:

Sorry, but I don't believe that you can define god(s) in a cognitively meaningful way.

That is the whole point of any metaphysical idea. It is a speculation on the limits of reason.
You are asking for positivist notions to be applied to metaphysics. You want an explanation of 'what it is like to be a bat'. Well, as Nagel saifd all those years ago, you can't have one.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2183914

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: agnosticism vs atheism
Reply #328 - Apr 2^nd, 2010 at 11:36am

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2010 at 11:23am:

muso wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2010 at 11:15am:

Nobody has yet defined supernatural in a cognitively meaningful way

They, through the exercise of their will, can subvert any and all natural law. The long dead can be reconstituted and be resurrected, mountains and pigs can fly, the sun can be stopped in its tracks, do a loop-de-loop and move east... All by the will of gods.

Doesn't work. Forest gods can't stop the sun in its tracks. All you have given me is several examples of nonsense.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

NorthOfNorth

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male

Re: agnosticism vs atheism
Reply #329 - Apr 2^nd, 2010 at 11:42am

freediver wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2010 at 11:27am:

Helian, are you merely arguing tha theism (according to the common and philosophical definitions) is irrational. Or are you arguing that it is impossible? Or are you arguing the ignositic viewpoint? You are having remarkable difficulty explaining yourself.

I am saying that it is quite acceptable for someone to believe god exists because he feels/senses it to be true. It is quite rational for another not to believe him when he says "god exists (independently of my mind) but I am unable to prove it.".

Back to top

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged