| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/21/2007 11:32:14 AM · #776 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
Atheists believe in no God(s). Theist believe in at least one. They are not synonomous. |
Correction: theists disbelieve in every god but their own. |
An atheist believes in NO god(s). There is nothing to correct. |
Does this mean you believe in every god in existence? To make things easier, perhaps you could clarify whether or not you simultaneously believe in Allah and Ganesh?
edit: Muhammed -> Allah |
Here you begin with saying something I did not say. An atheist believes in NO god(s). A theist believes in at least one. |
What was it, exactly, that I said you mentioned, that you hadn't? Sorry, but I don't see it in my post. I simply asked if you in fact believe in all existing gods. |
Please show me where a theist is defined as one who believes in ALL gods ever mentioned in history. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 11:36:37 AM · #777 |
Woo, it's too hard to sleep. This thread gets away from you and then you have to catch up and write to a zillion people.
@ Melethia. If you just want to explore Christianity a little, and don't mind a book written by a Brit, then I suggest you read as much or as little of Mere Christianity as you want by CS Lewis (the quote above was the introduction to that book). You can even find the text online if you just google it. I wasn't calling you a cheater BTW.
@ shutterpuppy. I do agree that a work should, ultimately, be weighed on its merit alone. I had complained that Dawkins was trying to judge philosophy and religion through the eyes of science. I disagree with this and, to me, the merit of this is lacking. (That's when Shannon asked me how I had the audacity to think Lewis might have something more worthwhile to say. (That's a paraphrase with some spin. ;)) I also pointed out that I much prefer Gould and his NOMAs.
One interesting sidenote is you call the cheater "immoral", but doesn't "immoral" in your context merely mean "a code I do not follow"? How could you judge the code of the "moral atheist" to be better or worse than the cheater's code?
@ Shannon. (in my best Lloyd Bentson voice) "I knew Albert Einstein. Dawkins is no Albert Einstein." (ok, that was my attempt at levity.)
Just to stick it to you a bit, Hindus believe in many, many gods and don't necessarily worship them all.
@ Gordon. About sinning and the fact we are forgiven. Romans 6: What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? ...
In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. Do not offer the parts of your body to sin, as instruments of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God, as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer the parts of your body to him as instruments of righteousness. For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace.
That was just to point out that your question is 2,000 years old, so it's a reasonable one. My easiest reply is to simply ask, "Do you think you can really fool God?"
|
|
|
|
12/21/2007 11:42:58 AM · #778 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Christianity requires that you reject the possibility of other gods existing... a curious demand for the only existing god to make. |
What does that have to do with the definition of a theist? |
Atheism is disbelief in the existence of gods. You don't believe in the existence of gods either... except one that apparently nobody was even aware of until approximately 2,000 years ago. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 11:45:04 AM · #779 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Christianity requires that you reject the possibility of other gods existing... a curious demand for the only existing god to make. |
What does that have to do with the definition of a theist? |
Atheism is disbelief in the existence of gods. You don't believe in the existence of gods either... except one that apparently nobody was even aware of until approximately 2,000 years ago. |
No. Atheism is the non-belief in any God(s). I believe in at least one, therefore I am a theist.
Theism
edit to add link
Message edited by author 2007-12-21 11:58:13. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 11:47:06 AM · #780 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Christianity requires that you reject the possibility of other gods existing... a curious demand for the only existing god to make. |
Actually, that's not true. It only commands that you not make or worship other gods. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 11:51:46 AM · #781 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I also pointed out that I much prefer Gould and his NOMAs. |
I suspect the NOMA point of view would hold more sway if it were true that religion doesn't try to go beyond ethics or morality. But in most cases, it certainly does. Once that happens, the overlap exists and the application of scientific principles should apply. E.g., claims that there is evidence for God's existence, or teaching religious beliefs in science classes.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
@ Gordon. About sinning and the fact we are forgiven. That was just to point out that your question is 2,000 years old, so it's a reasonable one. My easiest reply is to simply ask, "Do you think you can really fool God?" |
I didn't really think I'd had an original idea or found a brilliant loophole ;) In fact it probably occurs to every child who's preached to about Christianity, or in fact, Santa Claus (which to a child is probably a more pressing concern). I was merely proposing it as a counter point to your 'cheat but don't get caught' morality. In a similar vein, do you really think you can fool all of the people, all of the time ?
Message edited by author 2007-12-21 11:57:40. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 11:59:39 AM · #782 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I also pointed out that I much prefer Gould and his NOMAs. |
I suspect the NOMA point of view would hold more sway if it were true that religion doesn't try to go beyond ethics or morality. But in most cases, it certainly does. Once that happens, the overlap exists and the application of scientific principles should apply. |
Well, that's religion's fault then. But one bad turn doesn't earn another. If religion treads on Science, Science shouldn't merely tread on religion. They should be the good example.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
@ Gordon. About sinning and the fact we are forgiven. That was just to point out that your question is 2,000 years old, so it's a reasonable one. My easiest reply is to simply ask, "Do you think you can really fool God?" |
Originally posted by Gordon:
I didn't really think I'd had an original idea or found a brilliant loophole ;) In fact it probably occurs to every child who's preached to about Christianity, or in fact, Santa Claus (which to a child is probably a more pressing concern). I was merely proposing it as a counter point to your 'cheat but don't get caught' morality. In a similar vein, do you really think you can fool all of the people, all of the time ? |
Right. Good point. I think this really does speak to game theory (which I know very little about). That's the weakness of the cheater's morality. Getting caught can unto all the gain the cheater fostered. It probably wouldn't be all that great a life in the end. Lots of stress.
|
|
|
|
12/21/2007 12:08:18 PM · #783 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Atheism is disbelief in the existence of gods. You don't believe in the existence of gods either... except one that apparently nobody was even aware of until approximately 2,000 years ago. |
Let's just be clear. Yahweh is more like 4,000 years old. He was an old geezer already by the time those Olympians made their appearance...
|
|
|
|
12/21/2007 12:09:11 PM · #784 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Let's just be clear. Yahweh is more like 4,000 years old. He was an old geezer already by the time those Olympians made their appearance... |
I thought he'd always been ? Or is the universe 4000 years old ? |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 12:23:26 PM · #785 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Christianity requires that you reject the possibility of other gods existing... a curious demand for the only existing god to make. |
Actually, that's not true. It only commands that you not make or worship other gods. |
So God is a theist. ;-) |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 12:33:57 PM · #786 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Please show me where a theist is defined as one who believes in ALL gods ever mentioned in history. |
I think the point is that, in order for you to be a believer, you must actively disbelieve in a host of other gods.
Edit to cut out the fat.
Message edited by author 2007-12-21 12:37:39. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 12:38:10 PM · #787 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
Please show me where a theist is defined as one who believes in ALL gods ever mentioned in history. |
I think the point is that, in order for you to be a believer, you must actively disbelieve in a host of other gods. |
it seems y'all are quibbling somewhat pointlessly between the definitions of a monotheist and a polytheist or perhaps a pantheist.
Weirdly enough these are all names of rather bad [heavy|death|funeral|doom|speed] metal bands. Yet no band that I can find call atheist. God does, indeed, rock.
Message edited by author 2007-12-21 12:39:03. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 12:39:23 PM · #788 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Let's just be clear. Yahweh is more like 4,000 years old. He was an old geezer already by the time those Olympians made their appearance... |
Maybe the Olympians as worshipped by 5th century bce Greeks, but their predecessors are very old indeed. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 12:40:24 PM · #789 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
Please show me where a theist is defined as one who believes in ALL gods ever mentioned in history. |
I think the point is that, in order for you to be a believer, you must actively disbelieve in a host of other gods. |
Correct.
"Atheism means non-belief in the particular cult that happens to pervade the society under discussion. In America that means the cult of Yahweh, the God of the Jews commandeered by the Christians, Muslims and Mormons. Today, everyone takes it for granted that we are all atheists with respect to Thor and Wotan, Zeus and Poseidon, Mithras and Ammon Ra. If asked why you don't believe in Thor's hammer, you would probably say something like "Why is the onus on me to justify my nonbelief in Thor, given that there is not the smallest positive reason for belief?" You might go further and add that thunder, which was at one time attributed to Thor's hammer, now has a better explanation in terms of electric charges in the clouds. While technically agnostic about all those ancient gods, and about fairies and leprechauns too (you can't disprove them either), in practice we don't believe in any of them, and we feel no onus to explain why." - Dawkins |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 12:40:42 PM · #790 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
@ shutterpuppy. I do agree that a work should, ultimately, be weighed on its merit alone. I had complained that Dawkins was trying to judge philosophy and religion through the eyes of science. I disagree with this and, to me, the merit of this is lacking. (That's when Shannon asked me how I had the audacity to think Lewis might have something more worthwhile to say. (That's a paraphrase with some spin. ;)) I also pointed out that I much prefer Gould and his NOMAs.
One interesting sidenote is you call the cheater "immoral", but doesn't "immoral" in your context merely mean "a code I do not follow"? How could you judge the code of the "moral atheist" to be better or worse than the cheater's code?
|
Gould is great, no argument from me. However, I simply don't buy the idea that there are definitive and distinct realms of influece in which science and philosophy/religion separately exist. "Science", by which I mean evidence-based proof and inquiry is inherently tied to questions of religion and philosophy, it is the way by which we interact with the world.
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree in regard to whether Dawkins analysis of philosophy and religion from a scientific perspective has merit. However, I again must wonder how you judge the merit of philosophical and religious arguments if not by submitting them to rational/scientific analysis and demands for evidence of their worth. If you are engaging in this type of analysis, then you are not operating on "faith" but on reason. If not, then you are simply stating a personal preference. Which is fine, but provides no basis on which to convince others of your preferred position.
As to my definitions of moral versus immoral, I have previously stated the basis for my moral code, which is grounded in an aversion to suffering (which I believe is innate in the human species) as well as an empathy for other beings capable of suffering. This grounding is what informs my moral intuitions and conclusions.
Many religious people want to argue that without a deity or holy book(s) as a moral guide, there can be no definitive morality. But the problem is that if their claim to moral superiority is simply based on faith (non-evidence-based proclamations), how is their claim at all persuasive to those who do not share their faith? How is the Christian's rejection of Muslim moral doctrine (or vice versa)on the basis of religious faith or "holy text" any different from a mere rejection of a "code I do not follow"?
Faith-based arguments to claims of moral superiority do not persuade persons who do not share your faith. The minute you step outside of faith-based argument and begin to offer evidence (meaning testable and refutable proof) for your claim (e.g., code X makes people happier/healthier/wiser/etc. than code Y) you are no longer basing your moral code on faith and have placed yourself in exactly the same position as the atheist who understands from the beginning that his or her moral claims must be backed up by rational, evidence-based proof.
The atheist is willing to say, "My inclination is X, but if you have a powerful (evidence-based) argument for Y, I may change my mind." The religious fundamentalist says, "My inclination is X, because that is what my God/holy book/divine revelation says it is, and no matter what evidence you present I will continue to believe that X is correct."
|
|
|
|
12/21/2007 12:41:14 PM · #791 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
Atheists believe in no God(s). Theist believe in at least one. They are not synonomous. |
Correction: theists disbelieve in every god but their own. |
An atheist believes in NO god(s). There is nothing to correct. |
Does this mean you believe in every god in existence? To make things easier, perhaps you could clarify whether or not you simultaneously believe in Allah and Ganesh?
edit: Muhammed -> Allah |
Here you begin with saying something I did not say. An atheist believes in NO god(s). A theist believes in at least one. |
What was it, exactly, that I said you mentioned, that you hadn't? Sorry, but I don't see it in my post. I simply asked if you in fact believe in all existing gods. |
Please show me where a theist is defined as one who believes in ALL gods ever mentioned in history. |
I think the point is that, in order for you to be a believer, you must actively disbelieve in a host of other gods. |
No. I may or may not have any knowledge/understanding of "other" god(s). You have now changed your point presentation to include the term believer. Before we were just discussing atheist vs theist. Now you add believer. Please define believer as you intend it. The atheist is also a "believer". A believer in the non-existance of any god(s). |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 12:41:53 PM · #792 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Yet no band that I can find call atheist. |
Plenty of "Satan's Bile" and "Lucifer's Loins" and such though, just to add grease to the theist's contention that all atheists are either godless, devilful, or both. ;-) |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 12:41:54 PM · #793 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Let's just be clear. Yahweh is more like 4,000 years old. He was an old geezer already by the time those Olympians made their appearance... |
Maybe the Olympians as worshipped by 5th century bce Greeks, but their predecessors are very old indeed. |
Not that this is important to anything, but I couldn't find any dates for the start of these gods. Did you find something?
Let's move on to a different subject, the debate of what is a theist has perhaps supplanted the previous holder as "dumbest argument" on this thread.
|
|
|
|
12/21/2007 12:43:47 PM · #794 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by Flash:
Please show me where a theist is defined as one who believes in ALL gods ever mentioned in history. |
I think the point is that, in order for you to be a believer, you must actively disbelieve in a host of other gods. |
Correct.[ |
No. see above post to Louis. You do not get to re-define a term simply because it is convienient. A theist is not an atheist by definition. They are antonyms. If you wish to argue a point addressing which God(s) I do or do not believe in, then present your argument. But do not use it as a premise that I am an atheist, when by definition I am not.
Message edited by author 2007-12-21 12:52:21. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 12:46:35 PM · #795 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Atheism is disbelief in the existence of gods. You don't believe in the existence of gods either... except one that apparently nobody was even aware of until approximately 2,000 years ago. |
Let's just be clear. Yahweh is more like 4,000 years old. He was an old geezer already by the time those Olympians made their appearance... |
Yeah, but in between "in the beginning" and the last 2,000-4,000 years), we had thousands to millions of years when apparently nobody had heard of Yahweh and polytheism was ubiquitous. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 12:47:36 PM · #796 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Let's just be clear. Yahweh is more like 4,000 years old. He was an old geezer already by the time those Olympians made their appearance... |
Maybe the Olympians as worshipped by 5th century bce Greeks, but their predecessors are very old indeed. |
Not that this is important to anything, but I couldn't find any dates for the start of these gods. Did you find something? |
I don't have my books handy so my evidence is anectdotal right now, and my brain refuses to cast itself back fifteen or twenty years at the moment.
|
|
|
|
12/21/2007 12:53:17 PM · #797 |
Originally posted by Flash:
No. I may or may not have any knowledge/understanding of "other" god(s). You have now changed your point presentation to include the term believer. Before we were just discussing atheist vs theist. Now you add believer. Please define believer as you intend it. The atheist is also a "believer". A believer in the non-existence of any god(s). |
Sorry, but this rhetorical trick is dead on arrival. "Non-belief" is not a belief. But I understand where the religious "believer" might confuse the atheists non-belief with their own belief. The key difference is that for the believer, evidence to the contrary is unlikely to persuade them to change their view. They hold their views on faith (non-evidence-based claims, which are not subject to testing or refutation).
For the atheist, the evidence is what drives his or her understanding (not belief) and his or her determination that the evidence favors the lack of a divine entity. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 12:57:24 PM · #798 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by Flash:
No. I may or may not have any knowledge/understanding of "other" god(s). You have now changed your point presentation to include the term believer. Before we were just discussing atheist vs theist. Now you add believer. Please define believer as you intend it. The atheist is also a "believer". A believer in the non-existence of any god(s). |
Sorry, but this rhetorical trick is dead on arrival. "Non-belief" is not a belief. But I understand where the religious "believer" might confuse the atheists non-belief with their own belief. The key difference is that for the believer, evidence to the contrary is unlikely to persuade them to change their view. They hold their views on faith (non-evidence-based claims, which are not subject to testing or refutation).
For the atheist, the evidence is what drives his or her understanding (not belief) and his or her determination that the evidence favors the lack of a divine entity. |
I did not say the term non-belief. Non-belief cannot equal belief. What I said was belief in the non-existence of God(s). Please be accurate. If you wish to argue that atheists have NO beliefs, then present your case.
Message edited by author 2007-12-21 13:00:36. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 01:01:19 PM · #799 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
For the atheist, the evidence is what drives his or her understanding (not belief) and his or her determination that the evidence favors the lack of a divine entity. |
I did not say the term non-belief. Non-belief cannot equal belief. What I said was belief in the non-existence of God(s). Please be accurate. |
I am being accurate, you are the one who is conflating the concepts. Please reread my post. "Belief" as you are using the term, does not mean a "reasoned conclusion." These are apples and oranges. |
|
|
|
12/21/2007 01:02:49 PM · #800 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
For the atheist, the evidence is what drives his or her understanding (not belief) and his or her determination that the evidence favors the lack of a divine entity. |
Kind of like how the lack of a dead body favors the "innocence" of those associated with Hollaway. |
|
