Fundamentalism, in case you don't have a dictionary

Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Fundamentalism, in case you don't have a dictionary

Wikipedia wrote:
 Fundamentalism refers to a belief in, and strict adherence to a set of basic principles (often religious in nature), sometimes as a reaction to perceived doctrinal compromises with modern social and political life.[1][2][3][4]

Merriam Webster wrote:
1 often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b: the beliefs of this movement c: adherence to such beliefs

2: a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles

Let's do some basic logic, kids.  Fundamentalism requires principles.  Atheism is not a set of principles.  It is the lack of belief in a deity.  That is all.  Nothing at all follows from atheism.  How many times do we have to do this lesson?

1. There is probably no god.

2. ???

Therefore, ???

Nothing.  Absolutely nothing.  There is no principle that can be derived from atheism.  Any set of principles that includes atheism cannot under any circumstances be derived solely from atheism, and must be founded on a second premise.  Therefore, any fundamentalist who also happens to be an atheist must be a fundamentalist with regard to something besides atheism.

That is all.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
...And yet, on the other

...And yet, on the other hand:

1. There exists a deity named Yahweh.

2. This deity loves me.

3. This deity always speaks the truth.

4. This deity is responsible for creating the universe and everything within it.

5. This deity wrote all of the universe's laws, including it's moral laws.

6. This deity demands that I obey all of these moral laws to the best of my ability. These laws include: women must be subservient to men, sex must strictly be used for reproduction, homosexuals must be considered abominations upon the Earth and blasphemers must be stoned to death.

7. If I do not obey all of these moral laws, Yahweh will punish me by casting me into eternal hellfire upon my death.

8. If I do obey all of these moral laws and worship Yahweh, he will reward me by sending me to paradise upon my death.

 

Therefore, since Yahweh loves me and is always truthful, and because I wish to go to paradise instead of eternal hellfire after my death, I will obey all of Yahweh's moral laws.

 

...Gee whiz. How controversial that Christianity probably isn't the most healthy thing in the world to welcome into your life.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Ken G.
Bronze Member
Posts: 1352
Joined: 2008-03-20
User is offlineOffline
hambydammit wrote : let's do a some basic logic

Yes !!! set the record straight,tell them like it is.Right On !  

Signature ? How ?


crazymonkie
Silver Member
crazymonkie's picture
Posts: 336
Joined: 2009-03-09
User is offlineOffline
It's Kevin. He doesn't need

It's Kevin. He doesn't need any encouragement. Eye-wink


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Yes, we should stictly

Yes, we should stictly adhere to the fact that no principle that can be derived from atheism. We don't want to become like all those weak atheists that think that something else can follow.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5852
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I think it is maybe more

I think it is maybe more reasonable that rather than there being much, if anything, derivable from 'atheism', it is atheism that is one of the conclusions derived from a broader, rational, 'evidence-based' approach to understanding reality.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:  Any set

Hambydammit wrote:

  Any set of principles that includes atheism cannot under any circumstances be derived solely from atheism, and must be founded on a second premise.  Therefore, any fundamentalist who also happens to be an atheist must be a fundamentalist with regard to something besides atheism.

 

What about the need for a set of principles underlying a belief in No God. One could take exception to perceived compromises with modern social and political life in respect to those principles. 

Then a strong atheist fundamentalist with regard to the above principles must be a fundamentalist also with respect to their atheism, right?

So for a simple, perhaps overly, example say that a person is a strong atheist in regard to the principle that nothing can exist beyond what he percieves.

Imagine then, in reaction to percieved comprimise of this principle in his social environment, he adopts a dogmatic position on what is possible to exist founded by the principle that only what he can perceive exists. 

Suppose further that the exception he takes is only that of persons perceived to be violating the principle by believing in the existence of God, and in no other sense.

Is this person fundamentalist in his position in respect of his atheism?

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:I think it is maybe

 

Quote:
I think it is maybe more reasonable that rather than there being much, if anything, derivable from 'atheism', it is atheism that is one of the conclusions derived from a broader, rational, 'evidence-based' approach to understanding reality.

EXACTLY, Bob.  I've been saying this for years, and nobody seems to get it.  Atheism is a conclusion, not a premise.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:What about the need

 

Quote:
What about the need for a set of principles underlying a belief in No God. One could take exception to perceived compromises with modern social and political life in respect to those principles. 

Then a strong atheist fundamentalist with regard to the above principles must be a fundamentalist also with respect to their atheism, right?

All M are A.  All Materialist rationalists are atheist.  (this is virtually by definition)

This does not convert to

All A are M.

We cannot say, knowing only that someone is an atheist, that they believe or don't believe anything at all about the way the universe works, except to say that it is not a god-system.  As Bob pointed out, atheism is a logical conclusion to the premise:

All that exists is natural.

If we know that someone is a rational materialist, we can conclude that logically they ought to be an atheist.  

I suppose we could say that someone could be "fundamentalist" about the principles of rational materialism, but if we were to do so, we'd have to say that those pesky scientists are fundamentalists about the scientific method.  It kind of takes the punch away from fundamentalism if we expand it to include anyone who consistently applies their worldview.

I don't have a problem if someone wants to do that, but it seems like either an exercise in the banal or an attempt to push an agenda.

Quote:
So for a simple, perhaps overly, example say that a person is a strong atheist in regard to the principle that nothing can exist beyond what he percieves.

I hope neither you or I would take this person very seriously.

Quote:
Imagine then, in reaction to percieved comprimise of this principle in his social environment, he adopts a dogmatic position on what is possible to exist founded by the principle that only what he can perceive exists.

His misguided belief that "Only that which I can perceive is possible" would be the foundation of a potential fundamentalism -- not his lack of belief in god.

Quote:
Suppose further that the exception he takes is only that of persons perceived to be violating the principle by believing in the existence of God, and in no other sense.

Is this person fundamentalist in his position in respect of his atheism?

I don't see how.  Even to this person, atheism would be a conclusion, not a premise:

1) Only that which I can perceive is possible.

2) I cannot perceive god.

3) Therefore, God does not exist.

He would be rigidly adhering to a single faulty premise, not to a set of dogmatic principles.  Granted, I'm trying to use fundamentalism in the way it was originally coined.  If someone wants to define it another way, more power to them, but you know how I feel about semantic arguments.

 

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Imagine then,

Eloise wrote:

Imagine then, in reaction to percieved comprimise of this principle in his social environment, he adopts a dogmatic position on what is possible to exist founded by the principle that only what he can perceive exists. 

But the Theists claim the same thing. They 'experience' something like Jesus or miracles. Their proof is their personal experience. People are going to believe whatever they experience or not experience.

We're all capable of having a powerful hallucinogenic experience or being brainwashed so that would lead us to becoming a theist. Even if we keep our principles.

Don't we all just believe what we want to believe? Whatever feels right?

 

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Let's do

Hambydammit wrote:

Let's do some basic logic, kids.  Fundamentalism requires principles.  Atheism is not a set of principles.  It is the lack of belief in a deity.  That is all.  Nothing at all follows from atheism.  How many times do we have to do this lesson?

1. There is probably no god.

2. ???

Therefore, ???

Nothing.  Absolutely nothing.  There is no principle that can be derived from atheism.  Any set of principles that includes atheism cannot under any circumstances be derived solely from atheism, and must be founded on a second premise.  Therefore, any fundamentalist who also happens to be an atheist must be a fundamentalist with regard to something besides atheism.

Conflating atheism and fundamentalism makes no point. It's misdirection.

Atheism (rejection of God as existing and able to affect the natural world) is a world view from which things do follow, just as things follow from a belief in God.
 


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

OrdinaryClay wrote:


Atheism (rejection of God as existing and able to affect the natural world)
 

 

No. Atheism is the lack of belief in any god. It is not rejection of a god as existing.

 

 

This means that if you are not aware of the concept of a god, you are still an atheist. You have not rejected anything.

 

You assume everyone knows about at least one religion. This is not the case.

 

 

It is the same as someone who doesn't believe in flying purple monkeys. That is not a rejection of flying purple monkeys, they are not even aware someone believes in flying purple monkeys.

 

Now if someone came to spread the word of flying purple monkeys to that person, and the reply was "Prove it." followed by the person saying "No, you have to trust me."

 

Then that person said "You are crazy." That is the closest thing you will probably see here to a rejection of the concept of flying purple monkeys presented by the "purple monkeyist's" extraordinary claim, without providing any proof of it.

 

It is still not a rejection of flying purple monkeys however, it is only a rejection of the person's story with no proof.

 

 

 

Now if you say "There are no flying purple monkeys" then you are rejecting the idea of flying purple monkeys. But I don't see most atheists say "There is no god." I see most atheists rejecting a story told to them by people with no evidence, who are saying "trust me". There is a very clear difference.

 

You are making an assertion in your definition that all atheists are hard atheists, when in fact that is a small minority of atheists. To make that kind of assumption (that atheists are all hard atheists) would be drawing an incorrect conclusion of the atheist population, and would therefore make any conversation you have with an atheist difficult due to your preconcieved notions that atheists look at the world in a specific way, when in reality all it means is they look at the world differently than you do because you decided to worship something.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5852
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:

Let's do some basic logic, kids.  Fundamentalism requires principles.  Atheism is not a set of principles.  It is the lack of belief in a deity.  That is all.  Nothing at all follows from atheism.  How many times do we have to do this lesson?

1. There is probably no god.

2. ???

Therefore, ???

Nothing.  Absolutely nothing.  There is no principle that can be derived from atheism.  Any set of principles that includes atheism cannot under any circumstances be derived solely from atheism, and must be founded on a second premise.  Therefore, any fundamentalist who also happens to be an atheist must be a fundamentalist with regard to something besides atheism.

Conflating atheism and fundamentalism makes no point. It's misdirection.

Atheism (rejection of God as existing and able to affect the natural world) is a world view from which things do follow, just as things follow from a belief in God.
 

No - it is far more accurate to say that Atheism follows from world-views which are based on emphasizing reason and evidence as a path toward something worth calling 'truth'. It may also follow from many other very different world-views, which go in the opposite direction. There are many more ways to behave and believe irrationally than rationally.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:It is the

ClockCat wrote:

It is the same as someone who doesn't believe in flying purple monkeys. That is not a rejection of flying purple monkeys, they are not even aware someone believes in flying purple monkeys.

 

If flying purple monkeys were to crossbreed with flying spagetti monsters, then when I ate pasta, would monkeys come flying out of my ass?

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

EXC wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

It is the same as someone who doesn't believe in flying purple monkeys. That is not a rejection of flying purple monkeys, they are not even aware someone believes in flying purple monkeys.

 

If flying purple monkeys were to crossbreed with flying spagetti monsters, then when I ate pasta, would monkeys come flying out of my ass?

 

I would have to defer to an expert on monkey-pasta crossbreeding.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Ordinaryclay, back up your

 Ordinaryclay, back up your claim.  Name one thing that deductively follows from the following sentence:

1. There is probably no god.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Hambydammit wrote:

 Ordinaryclay, back up your claim.  Name one thing that deductively follows from the following sentence:

1. There is probably no god.

 

 

If you say "There is probably no god." then that is the same as saying "There is likely not a god." which could be construed as "There is definately not not not a god." which is like saying "I have faith through atheist non-scripture that there is not not a no-god." which means that you have FAITH in BELIEVING that my god does not exist!

 

So where is your proof? Where is your 2000 year old desert scribblings? Checkmate, atheist!

 

 

 

 

 

 

How was that?

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:If you say

ClockCat wrote:
If you say "There is probably no god." then that is the same as saying "There is likely not a god." which could be construed as "There is definately not not not a god." which is like saying "I have faith through atheist non-scripture that there is not not a no-god." which means that you have FAITH in BELIEVING that my god does not exist!

 

So where is your proof? Where is your 2000 year old desert scribblings? Checkmate, atheist!

 

How was that?

Eat your heart out, Edward Current.


 

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Wikipedia

Hambydammit wrote:

Wikipedia wrote:
 Fundamentalism refers to a belief in, and strict adherence to a set of basic principles (often religious in nature), sometimes as a reaction to perceived doctrinal compromises with modern social and political life.[1][2][3][4]

Merriam Webster wrote:
1 often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b: the beliefs of this movement c: adherence to such beliefs

2: a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles

Let's do some basic logic, kids.  Fundamentalism requires principles.  Atheism is not a set of principles.  It is the lack of belief in a deity.  That is all.  Nothing at all follows from atheism.  How many times do we have to do this lesson?

1. There is probably no god.

2. ???

Therefore, ???

Nothing.  Absolutely nothing.  There is no principle that can be derived from atheism.  Any set of principles that includes atheism cannot under any circumstances be derived solely from atheism, and must be founded on a second premise.  Therefore, any fundamentalist who also happens to be an atheist must be a fundamentalist with regard to something besides atheism.

That is all.

 

There doesn't seem to be any disagreement about the definition of Atheism above.

The disagreement is rooted in the REASONS one is an Atheist.

The reasons are a legitimate topic for disagreement as to why one is an Atheist.

The definition of Atheism does not relate to the reasons for the belief/disbelief.

However, the reasons DO DISTINGUISH WHY one is an Atheist, NOT whether one is or is not an Atheist.

Aside from that, it's true that the rea ons albeit a different topic, is a legitimate topic for debate amongst Atheists and former Atheists, as to the DEGREE of DISBELIEF in gods. It DOES differenciate Atheists from each other DESPITE the definition which everyone can agree upon.


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1

BobSpence1 wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:

Let's do some basic logic, kids.  Fundamentalism requires principles.  Atheism is not a set of principles.  It is the lack of belief in a deity.  That is all.  Nothing at all follows from atheism.  How many times do we have to do this lesson?

1. There is probably no god.

2. ???

Therefore, ???

Nothing.  Absolutely nothing.  There is no principle that can be derived from atheism.  Any set of principles that includes atheism cannot under any circumstances be derived solely from atheism, and must be founded on a second premise.  Therefore, any fundamentalist who also happens to be an atheist must be a fundamentalist with regard to something besides atheism.

Conflating atheism and fundamentalism makes no point. It's misdirection.

Atheism (rejection of God as existing and able to affect the natural world) is a world view from which things do follow, just as things follow from a belief in God.
 

No - it is far more accurate to say that Atheism follows from world-views which are based on emphasizing reason and evidence as a path toward something worth calling 'truth'. It may also follow from many other very different world-views, which go in the opposite direction. There are many more ways to behave and believe irrationally than rationally.

Obviously, saying that atheism follows from some beliefs has nothing to do with whether beliefs also follow from atheism.


 


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

 Ordinaryclay, back up your claim.  Name one thing that deductively follows from the following sentence:

1. There is probably no god. 

Your probabilistic qualification is comical. If you think that there is a chance, less then one and greater then zero, of God existing then you are technically an agnostic.

If you are atheist then it would follow that you have the belief that divine miracles do not exist.
 


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:

 Ordinaryclay, back up your claim.  Name one thing that deductively follows from the following sentence:

1. There is probably no god. 

Your probabilistic qualification is comical. If you think that there is a chance, less then one and greater then zero, of God existing then you are technically an agnostic.

If you are atheist then it would follow that you have the belief that divine miracles do not exist.
 

 

 

Again you act like atheism and agnosticism are mutually exclusive. Why?

 

You repeat your clear misunderstanding of what being an atheist means.

 

Atheism is NOT believing that divine miracles do not exist, or even that a god does not exist. It is simply not believing in one. Most atheists here are agnostic atheists. If you can prove that a god exists, then most of us would accept that.

 

Really, I've repeated myself too many times now. You should try and educate yourself on this, instead of waving around assumptions all the time. Read post #11 please.

 

From wiki

Agnostic atheism, also called Atheistic agnosticism, encompasses atheism and agnosticism. An agnostic atheist is atheistic because he or she does not believe in the existence of any deity and is also agnostic because he or she does not claim to have definitive knowledge that a deity does not exist. The agnostic atheist may be contrasted with the agnostic theist, who does believe that one or more deities exist but does not claim to have definitive knowledge of this.

 

Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept as true the proposition "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any other type of non-theism. Historically, the terms positive and negative atheism have been used for this distinction, where "positive" atheism refers to the specific belief that gods do not exist, and "negative" atheism refers merely to an absence of belief in gods.[1] Because of flexibility in the term "god", it is understood that a person could be a strong atheist in terms of certain portrayals of gods, while remaining a weak atheist in terms of others.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5852
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay

OrdinaryClay wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:

Let's do some basic logic, kids.  Fundamentalism requires principles.  Atheism is not a set of principles.  It is the lack of belief in a deity.  That is all.  Nothing at all follows from atheism.  How many times do we have to do this lesson?

1. There is probably no god.

2. ???

Therefore, ???

Nothing.  Absolutely nothing.  There is no principle that can be derived from atheism.  Any set of principles that includes atheism cannot under any circumstances be derived solely from atheism, and must be founded on a second premise.  Therefore, any fundamentalist who also happens to be an atheist must be a fundamentalist with regard to something besides atheism.

Conflating atheism and fundamentalism makes no point. It's misdirection.

Atheism (rejection of God as existing and able to affect the natural world) is a world view from which things do follow, just as things follow from a belief in God.
 

No - it is far more accurate to say that Atheism follows from world-views which are based on emphasizing reason and evidence as a path toward something worth calling 'truth'. It may also follow from many other very different world-views, which go in the opposite direction. There are many more ways to behave and believe irrationally than rationally.

Obviously, saying that atheism follows from some beliefs has nothing to do with whether beliefs also follow from atheism. 

Of course, but it means that when we see that any particular atheist also holds other beliefs or specific disbeliefs, the assumption that any of those other beliefs follow from their atheism needs to be justified, rather than assumed. As atheists, we are in an absolutely better position to determine this than you are. If you don't take this directionality into account, you will not be making valid conclusion about the 'consequences' or implications of specific assumptions or beliefs.

IOW, specific beliefs do often to lead to other attitudes and beliefs, but not always, otherwise you are stuck with an infinite progression. 

So you also need to take into account a degree of circularity, where a rational outlook leads to atheism, which, rather than leading to yet another belief, simply reinforces the primary position. 

You are still flat out wrong in your assertion that not believing in God means or specifically implies believing in something else. 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:Your probabilistic

 

Quote:
Your probabilistic qualification is comical. If you think that there is a chance, less then one and greater then zero, of God existing then you are technically an agnostic. 

If you are atheist then it would follow that you have the belief that divine miracles do not exist.

I gather that since you've avoided my question, you can't answer it?

Yes, I am an agnostic atheist.  So what?

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:

 Ordinaryclay, back up your claim.  Name one thing that deductively follows from the following sentence:

1. There is probably no god. 

Your probabilistic qualification is comical. If you think that there is a chance, less then one and greater then zero, of God existing then you are technically an agnostic.

If you are atheist then it would follow that you have the belief that divine miracles do not exist.

Theism is not 100% certainty that there is a God. By the same token, atheism is not 100% certainty that there isn't a God. I define these terms as mutually exclusive and binary, either one believes in God or doesn't.

By your definition, most of the people on this forum would be agnostic, if that helps.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
Fun with copy-and-paste.

Fun with copy-and-paste. Changes bolded and underlined.

Quote:

Theism is not a set of principles.  It is the belief in a deity.  That is all.  Nothing at all follows from theism.  How many times do we have to do this lesson?

1. There is probably a god.

2. ???

Therefore, ???

Nothing.  Absolutely nothing.  There is no principle that can be derived from theism.  Any set of principles that includes theism cannot under any circumstances be derived solely from theism, and must be founded on a second premise.  Therefore, any fundamentalist who also happens to be a theist must be a fundamentalist with regard to something besides theism.

That is all.

All of the above is strictly true, but it rings dishonest. Why? Because a theist is probably also a Christian theist, or at least a believer in a tri-omni God who has prescribed a moral code to man and will grant man an afterlife. Similarly, your OP rings dishonest, even though it is strictly true that atheism is merely lack of belief in a God. The reader still wants to say that given the current position of the dialectic, an atheist will almost always also believe in, for example, science and evolution, and probably he will also have a moral code that is Buddhist or humanist or somehow influenced by those.

Or we could make the fancy pants logical objection and point out that in order to arrive at atheism, you had to accept sensory data and some sort of logic, and even the most bare bones epistemology you could conjure up could not just prove atheism, and nothing else. So there are definitely going to be other premises here, premises inherent in the acceptance of atheism even though not in atheism itself.

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Theism is

butterbattle wrote:
Theism is not 100% certainty that there is a God. By the same token, atheism is not 100% certainty that there isn't a God. I define these terms as mutually exclusive and binary, either one believes in God or doesn't...

That is how you define these terms, as you clearly said above.

Bear in mind there are only a few billion people on this planet that would entirely disagree with your personal
definition.

Even so, nobody is forced to believe your definitions, as
as we know, you'd be hard pressed to find mant that do.

Then again, that doesn't equate to "rightness" or "wrongness" of you personal definitions. However, it DOES equate to your definitions as being your own.

In that respect, redefining widely accepted definitions of common terms only serves to obfuscate meaningful conversation of the topic.


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Wikipedia

Hambydammit wrote:

Wikipedia wrote:
 Fundamentalism refers to a belief in, and strict adherence to a set of basic principles (often religious in nature), sometimes as a reaction to perceived doctrinal compromises with modern social and political life.[1][2][3][4]

Merriam Webster wrote:
1 often capitalized : a movement in 20th century Protestantism emphasizing the literally interpreted Bible as fundamental to Christian life and teaching b: the beliefs of this movement c: adherence to such beliefs

2: a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles

Let's do some basic logic, kids.  Fundamentalism requires principles.  Atheism is not a set of principles.  It is the lack of belief in a deity.  That is all.  Nothing at all follows from atheism.  How many times do we have to do this lesson?

1. There is probably no god.

2. ???

Therefore, ???

Nothing.  Absolutely nothing.  There is no principle that can be derived from atheism.  Any set of principles that includes atheism cannot under any circumstances be derived solely from atheism, and must be founded on a second premise.  Therefore, any fundamentalist who also happens to be an atheist must be a fundamentalist with regard to something besides atheism.

That is all.

 

Threads evolve and drift. That's understood.

The "understanding" in this thread became "lost" when (as I posted above), the response drifted onto the tangent of the REASONS WHY
one is an Atheist, AND ATTRIBUTING THE REASONS ONTO
THE DEFINITION.

That has been a mistake at the least, and/or a misunderstanding at best.

If we desire to discuss the "whys and wherefors" THAT is is different topic.

The mass of confusion here is a mixing of these entirely different topics.

Might I suggest another Thread to separate the two different subjects?


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
treat2 wrote:That is how you

treat2 wrote:
That is how you define these terms, as you clearly said above. Bear in mind there are only a few billion people on this planet that would entirely disagree with your personal definition. Even so, nobody is forced to believe your definitions, as as we know, you'd be hard pressed to find mant that do. Then again, that doesn't equate to "rightness" or "wrongness" of you personal definitions. However, it DOES equate to your definitions as being your own. In that respect, redefining widely accepted definitions of common terms only serves to obfuscate meaningful conversation of the topic.

The definitions of atheism and agnosticism are debatable. 

My perspective on these terms is also widely accepted. In fact, they are the official position of this website.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/am_i_agnostic_or_atheist 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


cervello_marcio
Superfan
cervello_marcio's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2009-05-19
User is offlineOffline
If flying purple monkeys

Quote:

If flying purple monkeys were to crossbreed with flying spagetti monsters, then when I ate pasta, would monkeys come flying out of my ass?

I lold. Hard.

"Do not, as some ungracious pastors do, show me the steep and thorny way to heaven. Whiles, like a puff'd and reckless libertine, himself the primrose path of dalliance treads. And recks not his own rede."


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

 

Quote:
Your probabilistic qualification is comical. If you think that there is a chance, less then one and greater then zero, of God existing then you are technically an agnostic. 

If you are atheist then it would follow that you have the belief that divine miracles do not exist.

I gather that since you've avoided my question, you can't answer it?

I did in the second sentence.
God produces miracles
atheists do not believe in God
atheists do not believe in divine miracles
 

Quote:

Yes, I am an agnostic atheist.  So what?

It is an oxymoron.


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle

butterbattle wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:

 Ordinaryclay, back up your claim.  Name one thing that deductively follows from the following sentence:

1. There is probably no god. 

Your probabilistic qualification is comical. If you think that there is a chance, less then one and greater then zero, of God existing then you are technically an agnostic.

If you are atheist then it would follow that you have the belief that divine miracles do not exist.

Theism is not 100% certainty that there is a God. By the same token, atheism is not 100% certainty that there isn't a God. I define these terms as mutually exclusive and binary, either one believes in God or doesn't.

By your definition, most of the people on this forum would be agnostic, if that helps.

http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/17730#comment-247698


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Ok, let's get some of this

 Ok, let's get some of this nonsense out of the way...

There is a major difference between the following sentences:

1) There probably is no god

and

1) There probably is a god

 

It works like this.  When someone says, "There is probably a god," he pretty much always means "There is probably THIS GOD, and then proceeds to supply definitions of his or someone else's invention.  That's the kicker to this.  Except for Cpt_Pineapple and a few noteworthy pantheists in history, I don't know of anybody who says, "There probably is a god," and doesn't have a particular god in mind.

So while it's strictly true that the premise "There is probably a god" doesn't lead to anything in particular, since the word "God" as stated, is left undefined, we are faced with a dilemma.  Either the statement is meaningless, since god is left undefined, or it is meaningful, which could only be true if God is defined.  If god is defined, and assuming that it is defined in a way such that it interacts in at least one way with the physical universe, then aspects of the definition itself will dictate what is possible for step two in the syllogism.

Clever readers who have studied logic will note that there's a hidden step here that our less clever interlocutors have missed.  Here is the correct beginning  for a discussion of a probable god:

1) God is X

2) X is P (probably existent in our reality)

Obviously, this isn't a simple 2 step syllogism anymore.  It's the beginning of a more complicated argument, but that's the whole point.  To state the probable nonexistence of a god is literally to stop dead in one's tracks, so far as arriving at what does exist.  Since god is undefined, whatever must exist in its place is also undefined (if such a thing were to exist if we knew the definition!)

Suppose we say the following:

1) God is C (Insert one of the 15,000 definitions of the Christian God.)

2) C probably does not exist.

From here, we do have some things we can say:

3) Christians are people who believe in C.

4) Christians are probably wrong.

Granted, it's kind of a trivial argument as it is, but it can be the foundation of a great many arguments with real world validity.

On the other hand, we're still left with a big blank when we look at blanket atheism:

1) There probably is no god (God = ???)

2) ???

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:On the

Hambydammit wrote:

On the other hand, we're still left with a big blank when we look at blanket atheism:

1) There probably is no god (God = ???)

2) ???

All your misdirection aside, having realized that your original proclamation that nothing follows from atheism was bogus you have now tried to shift over to God is not defined. This is more mis-direction because even a specific case of God allows us to show conclusions follow from atheism.
 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:

On the other hand, we're still left with a big blank when we look at blanket atheism:

1) There probably is no god (God = ???)

2) ???

All your misdirection aside, having realized that your original proclamation that nothing follows from atheism was bogus you have now tried to shift over to God is not defined. This is more mis-direction because even a specific case of God allows us to show conclusions follow from atheism.
 

What misdirection, no evidence of god(s) = no required belief in god(s). What conclusion, it's a defaut state.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:

On the other hand, we're still left with a big blank when we look at blanket atheism:

1) There probably is no god (God = ???)

2) ???

All your misdirection aside, having realized that your original proclamation that nothing follows from atheism was bogus you have now tried to shift over to God is not defined. This is more mis-direction because even a specific case of God allows us to show conclusions follow from atheism.
 

 

 

So your argument is:

 

1. You don't believe in invisible flying purple monkeys

2. Then you don't believe the invisible flying purple monkeys (that you don't believe in) are shooting invisible fireballs up into the sky!

3. There, not believing in the thing you don't believe in doing something is something that follows from you not believing in it!

 

 

...Really? Are you serious, or are you just joking around? Because it IS fairly comical.

 

 

That is like saying, "You don't believe in aliens so therefore you don't believe I was abducted last night by them!"

 

While true, it isn't drawing any conclusion about THE PERSON. He isn't asking you what you can think up that wouldn't be believed in, like "You don't believe in my god, so you don't think my god shoots giant inflatable dongs at small children!" he is asking what conclusion you can draw about people that do not believe in a god that is a common factor besides not believing in a god.

 

 

 

You are simply restating the lack of belief in another way, not drawing a conclusion about any  common factor.

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


OrdinaryClay
Theist
Posts: 440
Joined: 2009-04-19
User is offlineOffline
latincanuck

latincanuck wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:

On the other hand, we're still left with a big blank when we look at blanket atheism:

1) There probably is no god (God = ???)

2) ???

All your misdirection aside, having realized that your original proclamation that nothing follows from atheism was bogus you have now tried to shift over to God is not defined. This is more mis-direction because even a specific case of God allows us to show conclusions follow from atheism.
 

What misdirection, no evidence of god(s) = no required belief in god(s). What conclusion, it's a defaut state.

Read #10 and #30.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

OrdinaryClay wrote:

latincanuck wrote:

OrdinaryClay wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:

On the other hand, we're still left with a big blank when we look at blanket atheism:

1) There probably is no god (God = ???)

2) ???

All your misdirection aside, having realized that your original proclamation that nothing follows from atheism was bogus you have now tried to shift over to God is not defined. This is more mis-direction because even a specific case of God allows us to show conclusions follow from atheism.
 

What misdirection, no evidence of god(s) = no required belief in god(s). What conclusion, it's a defaut state.

Read #10 and #30.

Read #11 and #35

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Thomathy
SuperfanBronze Member
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:You are

ClockCat wrote:
You are simply restating the lack of belief in another way, not drawing a conclusion about any  common factor.
I have pointed this out to OC before.  It stopped being funny a while ago.


 

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2036
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay wrote:I did in

OrdinaryClay wrote:

I did in the second sentence.
God produces miracles
atheists do not believe in God
atheists do not believe in divine miracles
 

Evidence that miracles occur, evidence that no other natural explaination can explain such said mircle, evidence that god exists, if there is none, then there is no reason to believe A) in miracles, B) in god, as such it is still a default position. Not a world view, nor is it faith. Man are you really this bad at understanding defintions of words, and how they are used in the real world, as well as comprehending the statements being made here?


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay wrote:Agnostic

OrdinaryClay wrote:
Agnostic atheism is an oxymoron.

You either accept the evidence for God, you reject the evidence or you decide it is inconclusive. You may use decisions of significance for accepting likelihoods, but ultimately you choose one of the the three choices.

That depends on how you define the terms.

You imply that theism is 100% probability and atheism is 0% probability while agnosticism is everything in between; under these definitions, agnosticism and atheism is an oxymoron.

However, I, and the founders of this website, define theism as >50% while atheism is <50%. Additionally, agnosticism is the position that knowledge of God is impossible whle gnositicism would be the position that knowledge of God is possible. With these guidelines, a person can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. Based on my perusal of the dictionary, this perspective is better supported. It is also more convenient and makes more sense to me.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay, instead of

OrdinaryClay, instead of saying the same thing over and over again, why don't you just list some beliefs that can be derived from atheism?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


SSBBJunky
Superfan
Posts: 209
Joined: 2009-02-06
User is offlineOffline
OrdinaryClay wrote:It is an

OrdinaryClay wrote:

It is an oxymoron.

Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of deities.

Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the truth value of certain claims — particularly metaphysical claims regarding theology, afterlife or the existence of deities, spiritual-beings, or even ultimate reality — is unknown or, depending on the form of agnosticism, inherently impossible to prove or disprove.

 

How is agnostic atheism an oxymoron? The term isn't an oxymoron, since agnosticism refers to knowledge, while atheism refers to belief(or in this case, lack thereof).

Example: I don't believe the invisible pink unicorn exists(atheism) but I can't know for sure(agnosticism). Ta da! Not very hard.

 

 

''Black Holes result from God dividing the universe by zero.''


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist wrote:Or

Presuppositionalist wrote:


Or we could make the fancy pants logical objection and point out that in order to arrive at atheism, you had to accept sensory data and some sort of logic, and even the most bare bones epistemology you could conjure up could not just prove atheism, and nothing else. So there are definitely going to be other premises here, premises inherent in the acceptance of atheism even though not in atheism itself.

Nonsense. You're born an atheist. It's a fallback position.  Supernaturalism is incoherent, you can only buy into it if 1) you ignore this fact or unaware of it and 2) after years of inculcation as a child.

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


todangst
atheistRational VIP!
todangst's picture
Posts: 2811
Joined: 2006-03-10
User is offlineOffline
SSBBJunky wrote:  How is

SSBBJunky wrote:


 

How is agnostic atheism an oxymoron?

 

 

In the sense that he hasn't a clue as to what the terms actuall mean... neither of these theists do... they can't afford to.... if they did, they see it as a rational position, and boom goes the dynamite...

 

 

Those who know the good, do the good. - Socrates

Books on atheism.


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: Ok,

Hambydammit wrote:

 Ok, let's get some of this nonsense out of the way...

There is a major difference between the following sentences:

1) There probably is no god

and

1) There probably is a god

 

It works like this.  When someone says, "There is probably a god," he pretty much always means "There is probably THIS GOD, and then proceeds to supply definitions of his or someone else's invention.  That's the kicker to this.  Except for Cpt_Pineapple and a few noteworthy pantheists in history, I don't know of anybody who says, "There probably is a god," and doesn't have a particular god in mind.

So while it's strictly true that the premise "There is probably a god" doesn't lead to anything in particular, since the word "God" as stated, is left undefined, we are faced with a dilemma.  Either the statement is meaningless, since god is left undefined, or it is meaningful, which could only be true if God is defined.  If god is defined, and assuming that it is defined in a way such that it interacts in at least one way with the physical universe, then aspects of the definition itself will dictate what is possible for step two in the syllogism.

Clever readers who have studied logic will note that there's a hidden step here that our less clever interlocutors have missed.  Here is the correct beginning  for a discussion of a probable god:

1) God is X

2) X is P (probably existent in our reality)

Obviously, this isn't a simple 2 step syllogism anymore.  It's the beginning of a more complicated argument, but that's the whole point.  To state the probable nonexistence of a god is literally to stop dead in one's tracks, so far as arriving at what does exist.  Since god is undefined, whatever must exist in its place is also undefined (if such a thing were to exist if we knew the definition!)

Suppose we say the following:

1) God is C (Insert one of the 15,000 definitions of the Christian God.)

2) C probably does not exist.

From here, we do have some things we can say:

3) Christians are people who believe in C.

4) Christians are probably wrong.

Granted, it's kind of a trivial argument as it is, but it can be the foundation of a great many arguments with real world validity.

On the other hand, we're still left with a big blank when we look at blanket atheism:

1) There probably is no god (God = ???)

2) ???

 

 

You imply here that theism includes deism and pantheism and a range of other positions. I agree, but I would point out that theism now refers to a family of positions only delimited by belief in something we can reasonably call a "god". We have a pretty good idea of where the limits are, of course - we can call both Muslims and Hindus theists in a way that we cannot call someone a theist just because he believes in the existence of a specific loaf of bread. But nevertheless, the person's theism as such does not give you any additional premises, because we have let the term become too loose. You might be able to deduce something from his belief in Allah or Vishnu, but his believing something that fits the definition of theism does not tell you anything useful. So nobody is a fundamentalist just because he is a theist.

You argue that most people would proceed to say that they believe in a specifically defined God. Actually, I think most theists lack that sort of rigor. I am thinking of anyone in the spiritualist movement who just believes in a deliberately undefined "something goddish but not sure what" and the hordes of nominal religious people who have not got a rigorously defined God-concept. You hold that this renders the term "god" as they use it meaningless, but I think this odd. I notice that we are communicating nicely with only a single defined term, and not a well defined one at that.

I would also point out that unless you include a moral code in the definition of god, which would be weird, the sorts of deductions you could make from the definition of god would not obligate any actions. So theism cannot motivate fundamentalist behavior. Unless I'm mistaken, one of the subtexts of this thread is that we want to be able to avoid being associated with the people who act in crazy fundie ways.

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Nonsense. You're born

Quote:
Nonsense. You're born an atheist. It's a fallback position.

I agree, but an adult acting as a fundamentalist atheist will probably have some actual reason for holding the position, and that reason will entail other things.

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


treat2 (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist

Presuppositionalist wrote:

Quote:
Nonsense. You're born an atheist. It's a fallback position.

I agree, but an adult acting as a fundamentalist atheist will probably have some actual reason for holding the position, and that reason will entail other things.

I grant you, there may be VERY slight differences as to the definition of Atheism. Open up any dictionary and you will find VERY SLIGHT differences definig ANY WORD.

It could be rightly said that the differences in the definition of Atheism are not significant for the following reasons:

1. The DEFINITION OF Atheism is not a philosophy in itself.

2. The DEFINITION OF Atheism is not a matter involving deductive reasoning or logic, beyond the (certain) disbelief in deities.

3. The DEFINITION OF Atheism is not a matter involving the whys and wherefors of the disbelief in deities.

4. As per #'s 1, 2, and 3 above, the responses involving that which the DEFINITION of Atheism does NOT involve, are totally irrelevant with regard to the DEFINITION of Atheism.

5. Atheism barely qualifies as a philosophy. The reasons for Atheism are philosophical to varying degrees, however, THAT is NOT the topic of this thread.

I'm in complete agreement with the creator of this thread on the point made in the thead post.


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
treat2 wrote:I grant you,

treat2 wrote:
I grant you, there may be VERY slight differences as to the definition of Atheism. Open up any dictionary and you will find VERY SLIGHT differences definig ANY WORD. It could be rightly said that the differences in the definition of Atheism are not significant for the following reasons: 1. The DEFINITION OF Atheism is not a philosophy in itself. 2. The DEFINITION OF Atheism is not a matter involving deductive reasoning or logic, beyond the (certain) disbelief in deities. 3. The DEFINITION OF Atheism is not a matter involving the whys and wherefors of the disbelief in deities. 4. As per #'s 1, 2, and 3 above, the responses involving that which the DEFINITION of Atheism does NOT involve, are totally irrelevant with regard to the DEFINITION of Atheism. 5. Atheism barely qualifies as a philosophy. The reasons for Atheism are philosophical to varying degrees, however, THAT is NOT the topic of this thread. I'm in complete agreement with the creator of this thread on the point made in the thead post.

I agree with every word of your post, but you misunderstood me. Here is the Cliff's Notes version of the debate thus far.

 

1) Hamby: Atheism cannot imply anything else, so atheism cannot imply fundamentalism.

2) Me (in part): An epistemology that gives a person reasons for being an atheist will imply other things.

3) Todangst: Atheism can be defended without a reason, as a fallback position.

4) Me: An adult fundamentalist atheist will have a reason for his atheism.

 

I will spell out the point for you. In the people who are fundamentalist atheists, there exist reasons for being an atheist simpliciter. The methods of thought that permitted those reasons to be reasons for atheism will necessarily have given the person reasons to believe other things, and one of those other things might have been the person's fundamentalist atheism. This is what makes (4) an adequate defense of (2) against (3) in the context of (1).

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

The reason I am an atheist is no one has made a convincing argument for a god yet to me.

 

I hear a lot of extraordinary claims, and every one of them seems to think they have the marvelous secret to the universe, but none of it ever has anything backing it up beyond just a lot of empty talk.

 

 

Does this make me a fundamentalist somehow?

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:The reason I

ClockCat wrote:

The reason I am an atheist is no one has made a convincing argument for a god yet to me.

 

I hear a lot of extraordinary claims, and every one of them seems to think they have the marvelous secret to the universe, but none of it ever has anything backing it up beyond just a lot of empty talk.

 

 

Does this make me a fundamentalist somehow?

No, but I think you should take a second to reconsider how you are approaching the issue. This is not just because I am a theist. The arguments for God *do* have persuasive power. The greatest philosophic minds would not defend them, nor would equally great minds rebut them, if they did not have force. Think about it. If you had a genius like Quentin Smith's, how long would you spend on a fairy tale without any interesting arguments in its favor? He could conquer any field, but he chose Phil. Religion.

I do not say that you must be a theist. I do say that you must take theistic argumentation seriously.

You are probably approaching the debate the wrong way. You cannot have a dialogue with another human being by defining your terms, then lining up your neat little premises with numbers, then proceeding to pick the other man's premises apart until he dies of exhaustion. I am not saying that you should quit using logic or formalizing your arguments. But don't forget how to think. Once you get what he means, don't pretend you will profit by additional clarification. It isn't like the premises will resolve themselves if you just get enough layers of definition.

Here is part of how to have a good, honest debate. When the other person presents his argument, try to step into his position, psychologically. Check the way the world looks inside his position against the way the world could look and does look. Where they clash, point it out. If they don't clash, consider not leaving his position.

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.