Australian Politics Forum - agnosticism vs atheism

NorthOfNorth

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male

Re: agnosticism vs atheism
Reply #360 - Apr 3^rd, 2010 at 9:41am

freediver wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2010 at 9:09am:

Quote:

If I said to you, “What are you thinking?” and you replied, “I am thinking of nothing”, would you expect me to reply, “That’s irrational”?

When you told me you were thinking of nothing, your intent (most probably) was “I am not thinking of anything”.

So you think that when people talk of (and define) believing that God does not exist, they actually mean absence of a belief?

It may be said that “atheists” are permanently in the state of absence-of-belief-in-god, so long as no one infers from that that they are actively “believing-in the non-existence of god”.

Therefore, there is nothing to be said of “atheism” in the absence of a theist, as the “atheist” is not “thinking-about-nothing-about-god”.

“Atheism” only manifests after the theistic proposition.

Then the “atheistic” position manifests (and after the theist neither can nor will offer any evidential basis for this belief) as “I disbelieve the proposition that god exists”.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Apr 3^rd, 2010 at 9:57am by NorthOfNorth »

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51268
At my desk.

Re: agnosticism vs atheism
Reply #361 - Apr 3^rd, 2010 at 11:11am

Quote:

Then the “atheistic” position manifests (and after the theist neither can nor will offer any evidential basis for this belief) as “I disbelieve the proposition that god exists”.

The problem with that is that disbelief can mean rejection or skepticism.

Are you saying that atheists, according to the common and philosophical definition, simply don't exist, or that it is impossible for them to exist, or that they exist but are wrong because their belief makes no sense? If someone says 'I believe that God does not exist', are they wrong about what they think (ie accidentally misrepresenting themselves), or is what they think wrong?

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 #362 - Apr 3^rd, 2010 at 1:04pm

freediver wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2010 at 11:11am:

Quote:

Then the “atheistic” position manifests (and after the theist neither can nor will offer any evidential basis for this belief) as “I disbelieve the proposition that god exists”.

The problem with that is that disbelief can mean rejection or skepticism.

Are you saying that atheists, according to the common and philosophical definition, simply don't exist, or that it is impossible for them to exist, or that they exist but are wrong because their belief makes no sense? If someone says 'I believe that God does not exist', are they wrong about what they think (ie accidentally misrepresenting themselves), or is what they think wrong?

“Atheism” arises when the subject disbelieves the proposition that god exists. Insofar as that condition is met, “atheists” exist.

There is no atheist I have ever met (and probably anyone has ever met), who intends others to infer that he is “believing-in the non-existence of god” in the same way that anyone would claim that “thinking of nothing” is about the objective substantiation of nothingness, but rather “not thinking of anything”.

In his “atheism” he is disbelieving the proposition that god exists. Nothing more.

Back to top

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 51268 At my desk.	Re: agnosticism vs atheism Reply #363 - Apr 3^rd, 2010 at 1:30pm So you are not arguing the impossibility of their existence, but that they simply don't exist?
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:	Re: agnosticism vs atheism Reply #364 - Apr 3^rd, 2010 at 1:40pm freediver wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2010 at 1:30pm: So you are not arguing the impossibility of their existence, but that they simply don't exist? I am arguing that "atheists" disbelieve the proposition that god exists. Nothing more.
Back to top	Conviction is the art of being certain IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 51268 At my desk.	Re: agnosticism vs atheism Reply #365 - Apr 3^rd, 2010 at 1:50pm So you have nothing at all to say of people who believe that God does not exist?
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 #366 - Apr 3^rd, 2010 at 1:54pm

freediver wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2010 at 1:50pm:

So you have nothing at all to say of people who believe that God does not exist?

Who are these people, who would intend you to infer that through their "atheism" they believe-in the non-existence of god - Such that the inference is the same as that for "thinking of nothing" is the objective substantiation of nothingness?

Have you met any?

If you're prepared to agree that "atheists" do not intend that with their statements of atheism, then all is fine. However, that would remove the basis for the claim that atheism is irrational.

Back to top

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged

Paella

Senior Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 290

Re: agnosticism vs atheism
Reply #367 - Apr 3^rd, 2010 at 2:50pm

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

Quote:

Well one of the key elements of the definition of a catholic, according to the catholic church iteslf, is the belief in transubstantiation. It is unlikely that John Paul II believed in it. It is unlikley that any educated person could believe in it.

In that case I am happy to go with what people generally identify as catholicism. That is after all the basis of my position on atheism and agnosticism.

I put it to you, that if you are "happy to go with what people generally identify", on the grounds that a definition of a class should include its most high profile members, that your definition of atheism needs to be revised to include Russell, Dawkins, Henderson, et al.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Apr 3^rd, 2010 at 7:44pm by Paella »

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51268
At my desk.

Re: agnosticism vs atheism
Reply #368 - Apr 3^rd, 2010 at 7:57pm

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2010 at 1:54pm:

freediver wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2010 at 1:50pm:

So you have nothing at all to say of people who believe that God does not exist?

Who are these people, who would intend you to infer that through their "atheism" they believe-in the non-existence of god - Such that the inference is the same as that for "thinking of nothing" is the objective substantiation of nothingness?

Have you met any?

If you're prepared to agree that "atheists" do not intend that with their statements of atheism, then all is fine. However, that would remove the basis for the claim that atheism is irrational.

So it's not that you have nothing to say about them, but that you are desperately trying to avoid saying it?

Back to top

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

IP Logged

Paella

Senior Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 290

Re: disbelief
Reply #369 - Apr 3^rd, 2010 at 7:57pm

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

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.

Again, call me old fashioned, but I though disbelief meant not believing.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51268
At my desk.

Re: agnosticism vs atheism
Reply #370 - Apr 3^rd, 2010 at 8:00pm

Quote:

I put it to you, that if you are "happy to go with what people generally identify", on the grounds that a definition of a class should include its most high profile members, that your definition of atheism needs to be revised to include Russell, Dawkins, Henderson, et al.

I disagree that a definition of a class should be it's most high profile members. A word is defined by how people use it. Furthermore, I am not aware of the public holding those people up as famous atheists rather than agnostics, nor am I aware of whether they fit the definition of atheism or agnosticism. Obviously, no person can claim to represent atheism or agnosticism, or even anything close to that.

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:	Re: agnosticism vs atheism Reply #371 - Apr 3^rd, 2010 at 8:29pm Dear atheists, saying what you don't believe is not enough. You do need to say what you stand for.
Back to top	IP Logged

NorthOfNorth

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male

Re: agnosticism vs atheism
Reply #372 - Apr 3^rd, 2010 at 8:42pm

Soren wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2010 at 8:29pm:

Dear atheists, saying what you don't believe is not enough. You do need to say what you stand for.

Why? Need more be said?

Atheism is about no more than disbelieving the proposition that god exists.

Whatever comes after is not necessarily a consequence of atheism.

If I am motivated to take on burdens for the greater good, or support worthy causes (which I do), I do so from a sense of empathy which I feel is innate and not motivated by any belief that god exists (and also not motivated because I disbelieve the proposition that god exists).

Similarly when I like to see good/right/justice triumph over wrong, I do so because I empathise with those who suffer.

Any protestation that I vocalise about theism is the result of theistic arrogations and nothing more.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Apr 3^rd, 2010 at 8:47pm by NorthOfNorth »

Conviction is the art of being certain

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: agnosticism vs atheism
Reply #373 - Apr 3^rd, 2010 at 9:01pm

Soren wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2010 at 8:29pm:

Dear atheists, saying what you don't believe is not enough. You do need to say what you stand for.

I agree. Cheesemakers should also say what they stand for. It is simply not enough to make cheese.

They should have a position on the things that matter in life, but I wouldn't hold your breath expecting them to come up with a consistent moral code that they all agree on, any more than I'd expect atheists to do so.

Some atheists (just like some Christians or some Muslims) are terrible people. Some are very nice people.

Even Christians can't agree on what they stand for. I'm sure that most Christians don't agree with the Westboro Baptists or Opus Dei for that matter.

In the same way, most Muslims don't approve of killing innocent people. Some do.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

tallowood Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 6048	Re: agnosticism vs atheism Reply #374 - Apr 3^rd, 2010 at 9:05pm Cheesemakers make cheese. What do atheists make?
Back to top	ישראל חיה ערבים לערבים IP Logged