David Henson projecting willful ignorance
Offline So . . . to say that gods don't exist is pretty stupid. Not a well thought out conviction. I'm not a scientist I am a theist. I am not very knowledgeable when it comes to science, I have to be honest, I was never interested in it. I don't believe in evolution, in fact I find it rather poor science (keeping in mind that I have already said I don't know much about science)
Apparently you yourself didn't think your conviction out well enough. Or possibly you don't understand thought enough to know that you need to understand the arguments against your conviction to consider a conviction, "thought out well."
What you did was called projection. In fact you seem to do it often. You accuse others of holding your weakness. You likely don't know you do it. You likely have become too entrenched in religious belief to be open to the possibility that you are incorrect. This is why we look at theism as being a mental disorder of sorts. You don't think clearly. You accuse others of your own flaws (ie they should be laughed at, or they didn't think them out, or they are using propoganda) as it makes you feel better to hold them. You are an irrational thinker and I could pick that out about you even if I knew nothing about religion or science, but simply based on how you present yourself.
Anyway, welcome to the site again!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
- Login to post comments
I have to disagree, but perhaps only because the alternative frightens me more.
As I said in my post in reply to him, I think he's feigning most of his ignorance of word meanings- that is, his answering the wrong question deliberately. I believe he's doing that to try to intimidate, and trick people who may be slower than he is into believing him.
Maybe if he tricks enough people into believing him, he can believe himself? Seems to work that way sometimes.
The alternative- which frightens me far too much to be true- is that he really doesn't understand that there are multiple definitions to words, and that when somebody asks a question, they aren't necessarily referring to all definitions simultaneously.
If somebody can actually put words together into sentences without mastering that subtle bit of linguistic reasoning, how many of them could be among us having no idea what anybody is talking about, and yet speaking anyway?
I just want to sleep at night, so I'm going to take a page from good ol' Dave's book and be willfully ignorant of his willful ignorance.
I say he's just being deceitful... with that, I'll save myself countless nights of tossing and turning, secure in my belief that humans as a whole aren't *that* deranged.
He is very similar to Paisley, Fortunate_Son, and Capsika. They use conflated terms to change the meaning of a word in order to fit their world, and then use it as an "ah ha!" moment when someone agrees indirectly.
Take for example the word faith. I have faith that my wife loves me. I have faith that my car will start tomorrow. I have faith that my dog will want to play with her ball when I come home.
I say faith because I can't know with absolute certainly that these are true. However, I have enough sufficient evidence that they are true. So I do have faith, but it is based on a body of previous events.
So, the theist will say "See? You have faith! Just like me!"
No, I don't. I have faith based on a body of evidence. You simply have blind faith based on no sufficient evidence. In fact, you have faith in something despite evidence to the contrary.
Even worse, they will use words that simply do not make sense.
An example is Paisley using the phrase "dogma of science". This is simply contrarian. Dogma is a belief system that stays intact no matter what evidence is presented. Science *must* change conclusions when the evidence becomes falsified. That is what science does...it actively *avoids* dogmatic principles.
In all of those cases, there is something presented with the intent to lead to atheism as ad absurdum (such as the "Do you have faith?" question). It is muddled with the mortar and pestle of confusion and mixed with the elixir of arrogance. Sorry, I am going to leave the bar and have a single malt scotch, thank you very much.
Dolt:"Evolution is just a theory."
Me:"Yes, so is light and gravity. Pardon me while I flash this strobe while dropping a bowling ball on your head. This shouldn't bother you; after all, these are just theories."
I have to disagree- because you said you can't know with absolute certainty; you, rationally, know it isn't certain, and I should think you have a good idea of the probability from experience.
In order for the word to have any meaning at all, and even hard-core fideists would agree that it is important for it to, faith is better put as the difference between the certainty we 'aught' to have based on the evidence (a rational sort of probability) and the certainty we actually do have. What of the people who say that 'God' doesn't come down and tell us all, because then we wouldn't have faith?
In common usage, faith is not evidenced statistical confidence.
Your car probably starts 99% of the time; it's rational to rely on that. It's also rational to be a bit surprised when it doesn't, but to realize that's what the probability was. I doubt you ever have been unshakingly certain that your car will start- and if it didn't you'd think you were hallucinating? Would you rationalize it by saying "well, this must not be my car... somebody switched it on me", or by some other far-out explanation?
Faith is certainty beyond reasonable evidence- beyond rationality. Not a general acceptance of the statistical truth value of a think for the purposes of day-to-day operation- not, as your experiences suggest, an approximation of probable truth value.
That is not to say faith doesn't have its uses- throughout human social evolution, it has been useful for keeping tribes together under single leaders (and people often have irrational faith in leaders). While I'd rather see done with it now (now it serves warlords and theocracies more than anything else), it probably did have a hand in getting us where we are.
I suspect (and on rational evidence), that you are somewhat lacking in faith- as are all critical thinkers.
I think that's a good thing, and I'd say the argument that we have faith at all isn't necessarily valid.
You shouldn't even give them the benefit of the word at all, lest they be too distracted by their perceived victory to distinguish the nuances you illuminated- just don't let them use that word on you at all when it isn't true.
To a large extent, you are correct. My point was that most theists are playing "word games" by using a word that many of us casually use and turning into something different.
However, I think that the statement "My wife loves me" is still, to an extent, based on faith. It would be tough to reconcile a probability argument in the state of affairs concerning my wife's love towards me. The point there is that I can't deductively know it (she may be trying to do a long-term form of deceit), but the actions and words would suggest that she does indeed love me. But this is different than simply having faith in something that has NO evidence at all, which is why I distinguish faith from blind faith. I can still make the statement that "My wife loves me" and retain my ability to critically think.
Dolt:"Evolution is just a theory."
Me:"Yes, so is light and gravity. Pardon me while I flash this strobe while dropping a bowling ball on your head. This shouldn't bother you; after all, these are just theories."
I think, rather, that you are approximating something that is almost certain- and inductive suggestion is enough, certainly, for the amount of belief you seem to hold in that regard. To the extent that the alternative is irrational- the idea of somebody pretending for that long for no conceivable reason- your belief and degree of certainty is rational.
It seems like, with the burden of evidence, your act of not questioning constantly the love of your wife is similar to a pedestrian not constantly questioning whether invisible rhinoceri are rampaging through the streets between the cars.
Both alternatives seem vaguely possible, and both are absurd to a rational mind.
There's no practical reason to consider them. We don't have to have faith to not take those "possibilities" into consideration every day when we go about our lives. I think the word you're looking for is something more along the lines of "sanity", not faith. The alternative would be a variable degree of OCD, or extreme paranoia.
I just don't think, when push comes to shove and they try to use words like that against us, we should feel any obligation to grant them that- our actions outside of dogma have rational reasons. From statistics, to game theory- human beings act very little on faith in their lives, and where it is present, it is almost universally harmful in the modern world.
When we use the words casually, it is in a different context, with different meaning- I think it's worth pointing out that it doesn't have anything to do with the concept as fideists make use of it.
David is nuts, he completely lacks the ability to look at what he's saying, or look at his own beliefs. I'm just glad I've been calling him on his word play longer than anyone else I've noticed. When he had to admit he has no formal education in Hebrew or Greek, I knew where the rest of his posts were going. Fortunately, people here are intelligent enough to call him on it instead of thinking "oh I didn't know that, this guy must be right."
The obvious counter argument would be to say I'm not a trained linguist of any kind either. I'll just address this here to have it on the record. The extent of my education, in the formal sense, ended after high school. Here is the difference. When I make a claim as substantial as the definition of a word, I delegate to a professional. I'm not a biologist, so I take their word for it when it comes to biology. Same goes for physics or history. When it comes to words, there is nothing wrong with using an adequate dictionary. My electronic version of Oxford English Dictionary second edition is one of my favorite pieces of software. It has authority, and I refer to it for definitions. David would rather just twist the word to fit his head.
I have actually gotten to the point where I can pretty quickly spot someone who thinks of themselves as on a mission to call me out, and if it were not for the predictability of such a shallow endeavor I would be fascinated by it. Fascinate me, Jonathan. Dance with me the dance of life.
I never would have thought of that . . .
Yes, well you had better, now that you have had the good sense to bring it up.
It appears that you are taking aspects of some discussions I have had here and mixing it with others. Now . . . do you intend to establish that my exploration in verbosity is anything other than sheer delight?! Right or wrong I just want people, speaking as a person, to think about what they believe.
Now . . . lets take the more serious implications of your latest blurb to the table.
Lets take the Greek anarthrous theos.
The Greek word theos is a singular predicate noun occurring before the verb and is not preceded by the definite article. This is an anarthrous theos. The God with whom the Word, or Logos, was originally is designated here by the Greek expression ho theos, that is, theos preceded by the definite article ho. This is an articular theos. The articular construction of the noun points to an identity, a personality, whereas a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb points to a quality about someone. John was saying that the Word or Logos was "a god" or "divine" or "godlike" rather than that he was the God with whom he was.
There are many cases of a singular anarthrous predicate noun preceding the verb, such as in Mark 6:49; 11:32; John 4:19; 6:70; 8:44; 9:17; 10:1, 13, 33; 12:6. Where "a" or "an" is inserted "an appatition" or "a spirit" or "a liar" or "a prophet" or "a god."
In the article "Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1," published in the Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 92, Philadelphia, 1973, p. 85, Philip B. Harner said about John 1:1: "with an anarthrous predicate preceding the verb, are primarily qualitative in meaning. They indicate that the logos has the nature of theos. There is no basis for regarding the predicate theos as definite." On p. 87 of his article, Harner concluded: "In John 1:1 I think that the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite."
In other words Jesus was a god, which is completely in harmony with scripture. Jesus was prophetically call a mighty god (Hebrew El Gibbohr) at Isaiah 9:6.
Since the anarthrous predicate noun precededing the verb is a very simple and common subject one must ask themselves why Bible translators are pretty consistant with its translation except for that one case in John 1:1? Then you have to face the very real possibility that anyone who subscribes to a specific school of "thought" can be corrupted or unintentionally blinded by their own beliefs and then Jonathan. We dance. Free your mind.
Ok David,
Why do you think Christians deny their polytheism if it is so evident in scripture?
Also, why do you insist on their being truth in a book that can't keep its stories straight?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Again? Have I left yet?
When I say something like it is stupid to say that gods don't exist I am begging the question, do you know of anything that don't exist? Someone mentioned Santa Clause. A literal person who became a well known myth. When someone says to me that the Easter bunny doesn't exist and I tell them that the bunny along with the egg and the phallic symbol the cross were all symbols of the goddess of fertility Astarte from which comes the name Easter itself, and that in the alluvial plains of ancient Ur where they worshiped this goddess the ritualistic sacrifices of young children who were dressed in new clothes, burned in sacrificial fire and the ashes and bones placed in urns with the rabbit and cross and egg painted on, that is a deeper examination than "does the fucking Easter bunny exist." Of course the Easter bunny exists! What is the Easter bunny?
It is the same with gods.
Now science, which I consider myself disinterested in as well as not terribly informed on is somewhat different. First of all, not only am I not a scientist but on the other hand not completely stupid. I know that for some reason people want to extol evolutionary science as "fact" and perhaps worse, as science in a general sense, and even though in that thread from which you quoted I gave 6 examples of scientist far more qualified than you or I in the field of science and could give probably 60 non JW Christians as well as non Christian REAL scientists who don't believe in evolution and that would only provoke a ridiculous religious tirade which amounted to nothing more than a symbolic placement of your fingers in your ears and saying "Evolution is true! I believe it! Kill the heretic!" but who the hell cares? Me? No.
When I see a scientist on the tele examining the wart on a frogs ass and coming to the conclusion that it must have evolved and then creating this great imaginary world that fits nicely in with the rest of the make believe shit the idiot masses eat up like purayed pea I think, well who the hell cares? I might as well attend a political caucus and nod my head in fake approval of income taxes being the primary concern knowing all the while that the idiot politician up on the stage knows as well as I do that it is unconstitutional for the US government to tax any US citizen for their income with the exception of firearms and imports, and that according to the 1916 supreme court case of Stanton vs. Baltic Mining there was no amendment.
See if I don't!
Huh? Are you . . . let me just say right off the bat that I don't really care for terms having become labels to explain something explicitly. You will notice, once you get past the double take that usually accompanies the reading of my message board or discussion group posts, that I don't used those types of words. Omnipresent God, for example, is a good example of a bullshit term that transmogrified from - well in this case bullshit. If God were everywhere at once he wouldn't have a fixed position in heaven or have to come down to be in the newly constructed temple or in New Jerusalem. Lets take some of the other omni's which at least have some basis in rudimentary truth. Omniscient. Does God know everything before it even happens? Then why would he send his angels to check out Sodom and Gomorrah, or Ask Adam or Cain what they had done, or say that some people would be listed in the book of life and later removed from it because of their actions of sin?
Polytheism and henotheism and monotheism distort the issue, I think, because they become labels which are abused, knowingly or unknowingly.
If you are asking me why Christians fucked up their translation of John 1:1 it is because they want to promote the trinity or at the least they allowed their reasoning to be clouded by their dogma.
Give me your best example of that being the case and I will demonstrate why it is you, not the Bible that needs setting straight.
I'll work on it though your last statement indicates it's probably a waste of time.
Your posts read like those "If science contradicts the Bible then science is wrong" types.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
You're almost interesting; I've only known a few Christians with internally consistent theologies in that respect (e.g. actually picking up on the limitations of the biblical deity from what was really written). If you were more friendly, more honest, and less liberal with personal insults and profanity, I might even like you.
I don't think I think like that, as such. It is true that my trust in the Bible is far more than my trust in science, but lets consider some attempts to sort of mix the two; as serious an offense from my perspective as it should be from yours, but for the sake of argument lets discuss it briefly. Some examples are an attempt to make Moses' parting of the Red sea as a "scientifically" feasible proposition by completely ignoring the account as it was recorded, putting the event somewhere it couldn't have been and adding natural events like tsunami to make it seem plausible.
Similar explanations have been offered on the book of Revelation. If you study carefully the book of Revelation you might see it as being the expression of natural events like asteroids. Things like the sun and moon darkening and stars falling have been recorded in the Hebrew / Aramaic Scriptures hundreds of years before and are obvious examples of political and social upheaval. (Read my response to the Skeptic's Annotated Bible in Books: Revelation.)
The point is that more often than not by far it isn't a case of science contradicting the Bible it is a case of Science contradicting really bad interpretations of the Bible. Prenatal influence, Insects going on all four legs, Pi, Rabbits chewing their cud are the sorts of tired arguments theists are often faced with, but the only two real disagreements I can think of between science and the Bible is of course, evolution and a global deluge.
Science minded atheists tend to demand that a theist, if rational thinking, must drop any consideration that there is the possibility of the theory of evolution being disproved and theist can mark the possible evidence as being there for a global flood being mistaken or overlooked, but to me it is really a small matter. It just isn't important.
No convictions are well thought out.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
Science thrives on disproving things. The theory of evolution has been under scrutiny since its inception. The best your side has done is to use a lot of big words to say "Goddidit"
Oh, and stars falling (comets) did not and do not herald or cause upheavals of any kind - those are coincidences.
"God said it- I believe it - that settles it - let's teach it in school" is so not the way to increase knowledge.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
It isn't really about science or them and us. We are all human. In another thread I pointed out how everything good is attributed to science and not much is said about the faults of science. And the way science is talked about is religious. The Bible says that all kinds procreate according to their own kind. Science agrees, does it not? The Bible says that all animals and man appeared suddenly and the fossil record agrees. What is there to argue about?
Oh, and the stars falling were symbolic representations of social and political upheaval, not heralds of any kind in a literal sense.
I am 100% behind teaching evolution in school and 100% against teaching creation in school for two painfully obvious reasons. 1. Anything shoved down some bored kids throat like it is dogma is going to be forgotten once the real world kicks in and puked back out. Just ask religion, they know this from personal experience. and 2. The idiots who run the public education system would probably destroy the Creation account even more than the Creationists have.
So, go. By all means. Teach. Evolution. Not Creation.
Thats freakin' sweet. But isn't it that I'm not friendly because I return what is given to me in an honest way, and I'm not honest because I don't agree with you? The insults I agree with you on, and am trying to lighten up on. Profanity? What is profane? You decide?
Point taken.
Are u kidding?
I think he's trying to tie the Bible and the Cambrian explosion together.
The problems with that are (iirc) that only aquatic animals appeared and that the "sudden" part happened over a 30 million year span.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
The fossil record does not remotely say anything like "all animals and man" appeared suddenly. That is utter nonsense.
And nowhere do we say "everything good" is attributed to science. What is attributed to science is the only relatively verified knowledge we have of "Life, the Universe, and Everything". It has nothing to do with good and bad, except as the only 'good' method of coming to know and understand things, in the sense of the only way which really advances knowledge.
Outside of science, you have only speculation and guesswork, assumptions, presuppositions, etc, the nonsense of faith and revelation.
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
No, you're not honest because you answered the wrong question to "disprove" atheism. In asking whether a god exists, you referenced the concept of emperors, Elvis, and fictional character being called gods as sufficient proof of the affirmative.
That was, frankly, the most dishonest use of the English language I have seen, and nothing whatsoever what atheism is related to, or what the existential question is referring to.
Profanity- I phrased that poorly. Certainly, it is in the context in which the words are used. I believe you told me to fuck off for calling you out on your dishonest use of the word 'god' in answer to the question; I doubt I'll get any kind of apology for that.
You are dishonest because you refused to admit that mistake when confronted with it, but just waffled and said the definition of god means shit. Yes, the definition of god more or less means shit if you take into account all of the possible uses- these are not what the question is referring to, however.
If you could at least admit that the Frodo nonsense you were on about was just inflammatory, and using the extremely absurd definitions was just exaggeration to prove your point (that the definition is shit), then we'd be getting somewhere.
In reference to the question of 'god', there is a limited subset of definitions a person is referring to when they ask the question- and an honest use of the English language doesn't stray far outside of that. That's what any and all words are for.
As I've said before, mere atheism has more to do with not-worshipping any gods, with indifference to their existence. An atheist may believe in and reject such "god" entities. An atheist may lack an opinion on their existence. An atheist may believe that a certain subset of entities commonly defined as gods do not exist.
Atheistic is broad, because it is a qualifier for all people, ideas, and things that are not theistic. In the case of people, though, atheists are a minority, and so it is a useful distinction.
I don't think that it is sensible to "disprove" a belief system, I was questioning the beliefs. Atheism is, as I see it, is the disbelief in gods. Not specifically Allah, or Jesus or Jehovah, or the supernatural, but rather gods. I'm merely pointing out that by definition it doesn't make sense to me. To me atheism is, at least on the surface, an attempt to "disprove" a belief system, which I think is stupid. But I'm talking about militant atheism, not atheism in general. Militant atheism is the paradigm of anyone who I would have discussions on forums like this. The atheists I know and grew up with would never waste a minute discussing gods on the Internet. Atheism for militant atheists like the people here are either politically (abortion, homosexuality, evolution in schools) or socially (former Christians, family with Christian beliefs, homosexuals) frustrated. Most atheists don't realize that according to the Bible men can be gods and false Gods that were myth were called gods in the Bible. That the word god is a title, like lord or man. To me the definition of atheism is limited in the same sense that if I didn't believe in Santa Clause I signified this by devising a term that said I didn't believe in men. Santa is supposedly a man.
Well, you are wrong there. I sincerely apologize for being so weak minded and unnecessarily rude. I was ashamed of myself and completely in the wrong. No excuse for it and it won't happen again. I'm truly sorry for my childish behavior.
I'm not going to go back on what I really believe and wouldn't ask you to do that. What we need to do is discuss the definition of atheism and of god from your perspective. I'm here to learn as well as teach. Show me where I'm wrong. I think atheism for a minority of militant atheists is an intellectually dishonest front for social and political frustration that has nothing to do with God or any gods, except through the beliefs of the average political minded Christian or Islamic state. Their criticism of the Bible is very vague and disingenuous. They are no more informed than those whom they criticize and the real issue is never addressed.
You have to ask yourself why are atheists not nearly as well organized as any other minority by comparison, the reason is that there are only a small amount of atheists who are militant, they are the more outspoken ones. I say this because I see the religious state as something very dangerous and suffocating myself and, though not at all political, I can relate to where they are coming from.
The definition I give of god is in line with the Bible and the dictionary. The militant atheist definition is poorly thought out and dishonest.
Science is the god of militant atheism.
I understand that. If I were not here I wouldn't be calling myself a "theist."
Thats just plain wrong, and a terrible comparison. First of all science exists. Science has no opignions, personality, feelings or emotions. It doesn't take sides, and certainly doesn't punish people if they disobey it. It is simply the best way we have of understanding our reality by testing things until we get consistent results. It is just the best vehicle we have to understanding the real world so even "reality is the god of the militant athiest" would be somewhat better.
David now your are being either very dishonest or just plain stupid with your definition of atheism. Atheism is a disbelief is god(s), goddess(es), demi-god(s) or any other supernatural being that religions believe in are the supreme beings.
Just because we as humans use the term on someone such as a gene simmons is a rock god, or Eric Clapton is a guitar god does not mean we actually believe they are a GOD, it is merely saying that are really good at their craft and that people or an individual person view them as better than other people. It does not mean that they have supernatural abilities and created the universe, life, earth, etc, etc, etc. Atheism is really just concerned with the disbelief in the religious or spiritual sense of god.
As for science being the god of militant atheists, no again completely wrong, science cannot be a god, since science is just a tool. Your being ignorant again.
I knew that saying Science is the god of the militant atheist I would get exactly this kind of response because the whole point I am trying to make is that the militant atheist doesn't understand the concept of god. Science can be a persons god. Boating, sports, music, knitting. If your argument is that I am manipulating the definition of god in a criticism of atheistic philosophy by limiting the definition as applied by atheists to the supernatural you can't continue denying the other applications of the word god.
In the Bible Paul refers to the belly as being the god of some people. Sticks and stones were gods. Moses, the judges of Israel who were men . . . not supernatural . . . were gods. Moses was God. You simply don't understand the use of the word god and so you don't see it as being applicable to you.
So are you arguing that point or just preaching science again? Can you accept this statement: "The perception of reality is the god of the militant atheist?" If not, why?
That is exactly what I said it was, but when I point out that god(s), goddess(es), and demi-god(s) exist by the Bible's definition and of the dictionary definition that makes atheism a flawed concept. Your very definition doesn't exclusively deny supernatural beings and I'm the one being intellectually dishonest and stupid for pointing out the obvious?
Exactly! I'm not saying there isn't reason to differentiate between a specific supernatural God and and the application of idol or other usage I'm saying when you lump them all together as disbelief you are obviously the one in error. As well as the fact that the word god itself doesn't imply any of the characteristics which you seem to claim. There is no difference in the word god if it is applied to Jehovah or Dagon. A god simply means to be venerated or highly thought of. Literally it means "mighty or strong one."
Listen to what I'm saying. Anything can be a god. Anything.
"Listen to what I'm saying. Anything can be a god. Anything."
Indeed. All a god needs is a worshipper.
At least science has support and is useful. As gods go, it wouldn't be a bad one.
Can't say the same for yours.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Two words. Nagasaki. Heroshima.
As with all things science can be misused.
Just like yours - the Crusades, the Holocaust.
Other invisible friends - Sept. 11, 2001.
What good has your invisible friend done?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
“ We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. It may be the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates Valley Era, after Noah and his fabulous Ark. ”
— Harry Truman, writing about the atomic bomb in his diary
Bombs don't drop themselves.
Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs
You of course believe your god is ultimately responsible for those nukes, they're all part of his plan.
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
Hence why atheists don't normally believe in gods because there is no rational definition of a god, and there is ZERO EVIDENCE that a god of any religion or any being of any individual person actually believes exists that is the supreme being or creator of the universe/life/earth in the spiritual/supernatural sense. You are a theists right, a believer in religious concepts and deities, I am an atheist, i don't believe in your god, period, there is no contradiction nor is it intellectually dishonest, you have presented no evidence that your version of god exists, nor is there any independent evidence that god exists at all. So no its not intellectually dishonest.
There is a huge difference between calling someone a rock god and calling a so called supernatural (which really mean's nothing because there is nothing that is supernatural) being a god. HUGE HUGE differences, even the dictionary definition is difference. Let me show you.
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=god
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god
most atheist are atheists regarding the first 2 or 3 definition, if you cannot understand that, well i cannot help your comprehension skills.
If that is the case, the definition must be made as to what makes it a god, and even if someone or a group of people make something a god, it doesn't mean it is, hence why your definition so far is stupid, it makes anything a god and there is no reason to believe in anything as a actual god, it's just merely a title of no meaning or value then. No gods exist in the religious or spiritual sense, as for supernatural being, yeah they don't exist either, as once we can define them and explain them, they are no longer supernatural, but just natural beings.
Because you have to change the general understanding of the word god to make that staement true. So if we are changing the general understanding of the word we can make up all kinds of silly statements, but that would be just that, silly.
Because you have to change the general understanding of the word god to make that statement true. So if we are changing the general understanding of the word we can make up all kinds of silly statements, but that would be just that, silly.
Alright- first, lets make sure we both understand the history of the word in the same sense:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_atheism
Atheism, in all but the last couple hundred years, has typically been used as an accusation against people who didn't believe in "the true god(s)".
While the usage has ranged slightly, and at the most conservative applications have applied to people who didn't follow any gods, it has almost exclusively meant "doesn't worship/follow correctly the god of the establishment".
It may surprise you to know that you would have been firmly labeled an atheist as recently as 300 years ago for "reducing" the Christian god, and denying him his "omni-everythingness" (of course not in those words, but in short).
It's an accusation that has been thrown around quite a bit, but amounts, historically, to a rejection of the theistic establishment and its idea of 'god'.
Beyond that point- which should be adequate enough- philosophically:
Many conventionally atheistic religions and philosophies believe in souls and the presence of supernatural beings they call gods, but do not worship them. Jainism, for one, is an ideal example.
Looking into atheistic Jainism, and the gods the existence in which they believed.
So, no, that has not traditionally been the case. It ranges from failing to worship the established god, to not worshipping any gods, to being indifferent or apathetic to the existence of gods, to disbelieving in one god particular, to disbelieving in multiple gods. --This is even still the case in modern usage.
The mere statement of Atheism says very little- only that the person isn't worshipping the established god in the society bestowing the title.
And for modern usage? Well, *that* god is the common definition (and not your definition, but the common one) of the Abrahamic god.
Please see Theism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism
Where language is concerned, history is important- very important- but so is common usage.
In that regard, theism and atheism have actually overlapped in the murkier areas (particularly with regards to the philosophical deism).
You should note, at least, that theism refers more specifically to the particular doctrines of a personal, ultimate, monotheistic deity.
Linguistic dichotomies develop through time- like those between deist and theist- to better serve the language, and these clarify the changing definitions (and yes, definitions of words do change over time).
Interestingly, for the past couple hundred years, atheist and theist, as well as theist and deist have been butting up against each other.
It's hard to say if a deist is somewhere in between atheist and theist- particularly, pantheists and the like also fall into the grey area.
I know people in this day and age who would call you an atheist because you don't "really" believe in god, on account of denying certain essential qualities they think he has.
Will I call you an atheist? No. I think that's pushing it. Those people also think I secretly believe in and worship Satan, so I put more stock in what people call themselves based on their beliefs.
In my view, I draw the line at people who are engaging in some sort of "following" or "worshipping" of, or at least difference to a 'conscious' supernatural being/deity. The theist classification, to me, comes through that action.
On the other side, if somebody either disbelieves in all gods(supernatural deities), or lacks a positive belief in any gods(supernatural deities), or believes in such supernatural beings to exist (whether or not called gods) but is apathetic to them, or believes they exist and is not apathetic to them, but does not ascribe power over themselves to them (though the person may or may not call them gods, as general titles- this is irrelevant), and staunchly refuses them/denies them worship or difference on those grounds (though may continue familial difference if it is a deceased family member)-- I know people who fit this description and are atheists-- then I absolutely call that person atheist.
Anything in between is a bit hazy. Lets say, the person believes these beings exist, calls them gods, and doesn't worship them, but also won't openly deny them/blaspheme them out of fear- that's a little too cautious, and seems to lean in the direction of a kind of phobic theism (theism out of fear and caution, which is very real)- it belies the notion that the beings are thought to have power over the person. If the person believes they exist, and ascribes absolute power to them but does not respect them/show them difference, and regularly blasphemes them, I do call that person an idiot (maybe a brave one!), but I'm still hesitant to classify the person as theist or atheist.
So there you have it- the black, the white, and the grey. I hope that clarifies things.
There are those among militant atheists who argue that atheist means disbelief in any and all gods and supernatural beings. Put simply- those people are *wrong*. There is no room for personal definitions like that. It just isn't the case- it's not how the word was coined, it's not how it has been used historically, it's not what it means if you take the meaning from a lack of theism, and it's just not common usage. The definitions are far to blurry for such proclamations.
The term "agnosticism" had nudged the definition of atheism towards disbelief, but agnosticism is rather another kind of thing- it's the belief that knowledge of gods is inaccessible and unknowable, or at least not known. Atheism has seen a reverse of that nudging with the destigmitization of the term "atheist".
Very recently (in the past couple years), agnosticism has come to mean more generally (not just in regards to religion) uncertainty and fence sitting- even in a way, amphibious mobility.
See:
http://www.netlingo.com/word/platform-agnostic.php
Within the relevant circles (and spreading surprisingly quickly) the term agnostic has been coupled with the terms "atheist" and "theist" and even "deist" to represent lack of certainty, as a clarification. Simply "Agnostic" still fall solidly under atheist, though, both in survey statistics and grouping in common usage- "positive/militant atheism" is taking up the gauntlet for more certainty/disbelief, although this is still not always the case.
Currently, the definition is in very rapid flux with the movement of new atheism, so there really isn't consensus on where the connotations will land, or which way it will go. Likely, though, as is the trend, it is being taken to be "that which is not theism", which goes back around to what I already addressed.
That's probably because it's not the right definition. However, "positive atheism" has been used more in this context.
The definition of "disbelief in gods" it too shortly put (gods is specific in this context to certain classes of deities) hinges entirely on the definition of gods(deities)- particularly those associated with Theism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deity
No, some "militant/positive atheists" take it on faith that no gods exist. Some disprove particular definitions of gods which they consider valid definitions to theism. See the link I posted above- Deity.
I'll quote the bit at the start:
There are many additional definitions of "god"- some to which the disbelief doesn't refer (the title, as you put it- e.g. rock god).
To understand that, you need to know English is contextual.
Have you ever heard anybody say "Eating organic food is good for the environment"? Have you ever heard the reply "All food is organic you idiot."
Well, technically the second statement is true- all food is organic. It's from organisms, composed of chemically organic molecules. It's dishonest, though, as a reply because when the hippie says "organic" food, the hippie is talking about food grown without synthetic pesticides and fertilizers- a DIFFERENT definition of organic.
You're being that dishonest jerk at the market trying to stir people up. Is that what you're trying for?
You're calling us *all* stupid by evoking the WRONG definition. Not a definition that doesn't exist in the dictionary, but a definition that is contextually different from that to which the "militant atheist" movement, as you're saying, is referring.
And you must *know* what you're doing by now, but you're still waffling about it, which is disappointing.
If you wanted to be honest, something along the lines of: "Oops, my bad; I didn't realize the statement was in that context" would be in order.
The thing is, I don't think you were unaware of that- I believe you were doing it deliberately to be inflammatory, because you thought you could get a rise. An admission on that order would be more believable, because that's what's really bothering me about your actions.
Anyway, my whole point was that your use of a definition of god that the disbelief isn't referring to isn't honest or valid. The disbelief applies to a narrow spectrum of the common definition of monotheistic and polytheistic supernatural entities- what people in this day and age typically call gods (but not the only things they may use those words on).
That's not what I saw in your post. Either way, your act of calling atheism stupid based on using the wrong definition of gods (a definition to which even militant atheism doesn't refer) is dishonest.
FYI, I'm not really very "into" RRS; I just like to debate and educate. You'll meet many non-militant atheists here. I'm more in with the humanists and CFI.
Let's address the second first- gods that a myth don't exist. It doesn't matter if you call something that doesn't exist a god or not- a fictional god doesn't exist because it is fictional. That's a truism, and I don't know how or why you would bring up the counterpoint that it invalidates disbelief.
As to the first: Most people do not accept "men becomming gods" as a standard definition. Remember, though it may be unfortunate at times, we're playing by the rules of majority rules when it comes to language.
If you wish to bring up some biblical analogy to men who are validly acknowledged as gods of the same order as YHWH without being supernatural, propagate it, and get it accepted by a usage panel, then you might be able to make the argument.
The thing that you weren't seeing is that no atheist is referring to the title when he or she states disbelief in gods. Atheists are referring to the 'postulated' supernatural beings. And Hippies are referring to food grown without synthetic fertilizer and pesticides. Not elvis, not Frodo- not organic molecules, or products of organ based life forms.
Santa is largely considered to be an elf in traditional folklore. You could make a statement that you don't believe in elves.
Anyway, the denial only extends as far as the standard definition of deity- not to every alternative definition of "god", which is a much more common word- the common word is used because it is common, but it does not express every definition. Language relies on context- please remember that.
Organic, god, and many other words have multiple definitions which trivialize and even negate each other- see: http://www.rinkworks.com/words/contronyms.shtml
They can not be used interchangeably in the same context with any semblance of honesty. However, they do make great comic routines.
See here... you went from initially inflammatory, making extreme and ridiculous statements like, 'atheism is stupid because Frodo (among others) is obviously called a god by some people and he's a real fictional character' (paraphrasing) to more reserved and rational.
If you has said what you just now said from the beginning, I only would have agreed with you and left it at that.
Yes, a minority of militant atheists (not all of them, but perhaps 40% of the 'militants' if I would guess), are taking out social and political frustrations on the general concept of all "gods" and religion when they have a disagreement not of entirely rational origin with a few majority opinions of the average Christian and Islamic theocracies. In short, they're pissed off, therefore goes doesn't exist- now work backwards to prove that.
You don't need to call us all stupid to say that.
This is not the case with all positive atheists, nor even all militant ones. For many of us, our atheism stems from logistical problems we find in god belief, and we have the desire to discuss and educate regardless of motives or results- in particular, this often precedes any argument for the prudence of those actions for sociopolitical reasons.
I disbelieve in gods (deities- the generally supernatural beings with certain ascribed powers and motivations) because every definition I have encountered has suffered logical flaws that make it impossible.
I do not disbelieve with certainty in a space-alien named Thor who flies around the universe in a flying saucer that sounds like thunder, and was once worshipped by Norse and called a god. I don't believe that either, as I have no reason to- but it's not alltogether impossible.
However, *I* don't call this being a god, and I don't accept it as fulfilling any common definition of a god (any common definition IN the CONTEXT of the question at hand).
Show me a god(deity) that is not logically impossible (which would make be disbelieve with certainty), and which does not conflict with scientific evidence (which would make me generally disbelieve it[find it very unlikely], but with less certainty than a logical contradiction), and I will only disbelieve it for lack of positive evidence, but will assert no certainty in this (like Russel's teapot).
I may, however, accuse you of stretching the definition of a deity beyond the breaking point (some people who define god as "magnetism", unconscious, unthinking, plain-old force of nature- no, this is not a god).
It is not so much because of this, but because we strongly disagree on almost every other topic imaginable. There are atheists who march with the pro-lifers trying to ban abortion- even militant atheists who do. Pick any polarizing issue, and there's no guarantee that all of us are on the same side. Also, we're generally "free thinkers" so we value having our own opinions greatly, and become weary of leadership sometimes- it's like herding cats.
Eh, no... it's several definitions in line with multiple entries- multiple definitions- in the dictionary entry for "god"- some of which trivialize each other, and violate the context of the statement.
Cross reference that with deity. Again, it's simply not the definition the disbelief is referring to- this is CONTEXT. You can find statements of disbelief that are longer, and are much more specific from most militant atheists- they are not to vague as to allow your definition of "Frodo".
English is contextual. You're the one deliberately using a definition that isn't being referenced- some of these militant atheist may make mistakes about some things they say, but they all pretty much know (as participants in English) the context of the question they're answering, and the statement they're making.
Us: "Eating organic food is good for the environment"
You: "All food is organic you idiot."
Us: "We believe that gods don't exist" (and not all of us are even saying that)
You: "Of course Frodo exists, he's a fictional character and he's a god, also Elvis! And Stalin! etc. (whatever it was you listed)"
Stop it!
Of all of the religious people I've debated, I've never heard somebody stoop so low with an argument like that- probably because they know at least nobody could ever take it seriously.
You know the definitions- you know the context. You can't plug in variable definitions that disagree with the context and expect it to be coherent, or criticize us when it isn't.
The same thing probably upsets you when people do that to your bible- but at least that's being done in another language (understandable). You know English- and you seem to know it well. You don't have an excuse of a poor grasp of the language to justify this behavior.
You're being that same dishonest jerk at the health-food store who is calling everybody else stupid by evoking the WRONG definition. Sorry, but you have no leg to stand on if you're going to criticize a few militant atheists who may or may not make mistakes in translating the Christian bible- you're doing it to living people, putting words in their very mouths, and almost certainly doing it deliberately.
No, no it isn't. In no way does science fill the definition of a god in this context- or any other. Not all militant atheists even accept, believe in, or are aware of the scientific method.
And as you aren't a scientists, and don't know the scientific method or what science is about, you would be wise not to make wild claims about it being a god. (Not to assume you'd want to be wise, considering).
A little humility, and the admission of your mistake would be impressive, but again, isn't expected. I appreciate your apology for your "fuck you" exclamation, so I suppose only time will tell if you'll rectify your more glaring contextual/definitional issues.
You reject him in complete willful ignorance and yet question his apparent absence? Those are your doings not his.
Nonsense.
We do not reject god due to willful ignorance; we reject him out of lack of evidence.
You accept him without evidence. That is willful ignorance.
Dolt:"Evolution is just a theory."
Me:"Yes, so is light and gravity. Pardon me while I flash this strobe while dropping a bowling ball on your head. This shouldn't bother you; after all, these are just theories."
No. I don't.
So what your saying is if the word "god" can be used to describe something different than what is excepted amoung most aheists/theists then we have to agree that science can be considered a god and therefor we believe in a god? What? I honestly don't understand your argument at all, is it really that stupid or am I missing something?
Not a well thought out conviction!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.
Neither are necessarily willful ignorance.
Accepting a god without evidence is faith.
Avoiding learning about science because you fear it may conflict with your faith- or believe it does- is willful ignorance.
David strikes me as simply ignorant, rather than willfully so; but it may be the case that he is willfully ignorant about science. The state of science education in the States, anyway, is poor enough that one doesn't have to be willful in order to be ignorant of science.
He may be willfully ignoring my argument about his dishonest response to the context used with the word "god" in regards to positive atheism- but I think he is aware of it and acknowledges it, and is just being prideful and dishonest- that's different.
He doesn't consider his god omnipotent or omniscient. As far as I have been able to tell, his god is basically an old dude with a certain subset of magic powers that participated in creating the world (though not necessarily in absolute terms).
A computer scientist running a simulation in the matrix, were we in said matrix, would seem to qualify.
Is this a reasonable definition of a god by any modern metric? That's the more pertinent question.