freediver wrote on Mar 24^th, 2010 at 9:54pm:

Ah, wikipedia.

Soren wrote on Mar 24^th, 2010 at 11:16pm:

Oh it's a scam alright.

Soren wrote on Mar 24^th, 2010 at 11:16pm:

One more word and you'll awaken the ghost of Sartre.

Soren wrote on Mar 24^th, 2010 at 11:33pm:

"Where (or of what) one cannot speak, one must pass over in silence".

Soren wrote on Mar 24^th, 2010 at 11:49pm:

"Sacre bleu, you've awoken moi from ma nerthingness... Well may ma disciples say "Laff is sheet"... But death is a bore"

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 25^th, 2010 at 8:32am:


Since we can think only in terms of space and time (a priori, don't you know). We cannot think nothing because we cannot think no-space and no-time.
SO while we can say that we do not accept a proposition that something exists, we cannot fill the gap, left by the removal of god, with nothing. But pure materialism cannot fill that gap. You have to re-arrange the cosmos to remove the gap. But you can't (yet) rearrange language and human experience. Once you introduce ideals, as you must, you have smuggled god back in. Or you can try to be a Meursault, which is OK for one or two, but you cannot make up a society of only Meursaults.

This is why the most murderous atheists tried to refashion language and experience in re-education camnps and prisons.
But that doesn't work. Pure Dawkinsian or Hitchenesque re-stacking of the world doesn't work either.

H0: God does not exist.
H1: God exists

H0 = "null hypothesis"

Atheist: do not reject (H0).
Theist: reject (H0).

It’s really that simple.

I’m beginning to think that arguing with a person who contends that atheism is irrational is, in itself, irrational.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Mar 24^th, 2010 at 10:17pm:


http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism

Atheism, as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and other philosophy reference works, is the denial of the existence of God.[1][2][3]

Fact is, that is what atheism means. Outside this debate, the only time I have heard the term atheism used with a broader meaning is by people who aren't familiar with the term agnostic.

Not only is this the 'correct' meaning of the term from a semantic perspective, it is also the correct meaning from a rational perspective. The whole point of language is to convey meaning. Using atheism to mean belief that God does not exist, and agnosticism to mean lack of belief, conveys the most meaning. It allows people to communicate effectively. That is why people use the words the way they do. The alternative definitions are given here by those who would define atheists out of existence in order to define their irrationality out of existence. It makes effective communication almost impossible by imposing garbled, meaningless 'definitions'. It hides the irrationality of atheists by hiding atheists behind agnostics.