By the way, EricH...what do you say "atheist" means...and why do you say it? — Frank Apisa
Again, explicitly self-contradictory. Origin of the Big Bang = cause of the Big Bang = temporally prior = nonsense, i.e. "north of the North Pole".I'm not doing that, what I am talking about is any processes involved in the origin of the Big Bang.
Enai De A Lukal
180
↪Frank Apisa You are most assuredly in over your head here, and this latest post is only further proof of that- the burden of proof applies to anyone making assertions, such as those you made. And not only do you have the burden of proof for your claims, but epistemic justification as well- assertions such as you made require sufficient evidence in order to be justified, i.e. reasonable. Lacking sufficient evidence/argumentation, you are not only shirking your burden of proof in the context of this discussion board, but are adopting unreasonable beliefs- mere guesses. So, until you put on your big-boy pants and start taking things seriously, you can hang out in the kiddie pool all by your lonesome. — Enai De A Lukal
The best contemporary science - (neo-darwinian) Natural Selection, General Relativity & Quantum Field Theory - is the overwhelmingly preponderant body of evidence that is inconsistent with - rules out to several or more decimal places - any (super-natural) "creator".I don't see scientists trying very hard to settle the matter one way or other. — TheMadFool
No. Scientists seek to disprove science. Period. The existence of a "creator" - super-natural anomaly - demonstrated by direct or indirect observations, would, in fact, be such a fundamental disproof.In fact, scientists, at least those who make the headlines, seem to be making an effort to disprove god
Well, in that case, here's a hanging softball:I am not in over my head... — Frank Apisa
180 Proof
1.5k
I am not in over my head...
— Frank Apisa
Well, in that case, here's a hanging softball:
Given, Frank, that you do not know whether or not "any gods" exist, which "gods" do you believe in (trust) or worship daily (i.e. hope will protect or "save" you)? — 180 Proof
Hint: I'd bet you answer the same as I do. :smirk:
So for starters, 3017, read Epicurus (or Lucretius) and Sextus Empiricus. Read Hobbes and Spinoza too. And maybe, in more contemporary terms, Feuerbach, Deleuze, Dennett, Haack, Stenger, Deutsch, Metzinger, Rovelli, and Meillassoux (or, as I prefer, Brassier). That is, if you want to understand something of what I understand and thereby how I can, with sufficiently strong warrant, claim that theism is not true. (Of course, historical & scientific literacy as well as varieties of entheogenic experiences (i.e. ecstatic techniques) also help.) You make it quite clear, however, that understanding (let alone knowledge) isn't what you're after, 3017. :shade: — 180 Proof
180 Proof
1.5k
↪Frank Apisa Well if you are as intelligent as you think you are, then you will agree that 'if A = B and B = C, then A = C', right? :sweat:
So:
If Frank Apisa's g/G position = no g/G-beliefs,
If 180 Proof's g/G position = no g/G-beliefs,
and no g/G-beliefs = atheism (i.e. a-theos, without g/G),
Then Frank Apisa's g/G position = 180 Proof's g/G position;
Therefore both Frank Apisa's g/G position & 180 Proof's g/G position = atheism.
Capice, Signore? :smirk: — 180 Proof
EricH
169
↪180 Proof
We seem to have dueling definitions here.
I could be wrong, but as I understand him Frank defines no g/G-beliefs as agnosticism not atheism. Per Frank's definition, atheism is an active denial/rejection of g/G-beliefs - which is distinct from simply having no opinion/belief one way or the other.
I.e., denial is a form of belief.
Of course the word belief is very slippery. . . :chin: — EricH
Oh you're right about Frank's idiosyncratic 'definition'; but who cares? Words (concepts) belong to conventions of usage with long histories - they don't just mean, Humpty Dumpty-like, what one says they mean. Thus, Frank maladroitly equivocates & goal post shifts from thread to thread on the basis of his lazy Frankisms. Besides, if you read the prior post where I stipulate his as well as mine and everyone's agnosticism with respect to "any gods", what's at issue is the degree to which there are "any gods" that Frank believes in or worships, to which he's answered "None". And that position is indistinguishable from contemporary atheism in general, the derivation from ancient atheism in particular.I could be wrong, but as I understand him Frank defines no g/G-beliefs as agnosticism not atheism. — EricH
This statement by Stephen Roberts (who?) exhibits the shift from the ancient (poly / heno - theistic) ἄθεος to contemporary (JCI monotheistic) atheism. To wit: whether or not one is agnostic about "any gods", there are "gods" one lives without, that is, doesn't worship, doesn't believe-in - at least one, or some, or all but one, or "none" (as Frank confessed).I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
↪Frank Apisa As I've said quite a few times, I'm not interested in persuading you (or anyone), Frank, but to expose your (everyone's) misuderstandings, fallacies & nonsense / bullshit, and have a little fun (at your expense :razz: ) while I'm at it. Yeah, over your head is an understatement. :sweat: — 180 Proof
"Petty stuff" like these ad hominems.... atheists realize they are outclassed by agnostic arguments...and resort to that petty stuff.
Atheists pretend they are not...and have to live the lie. — Frank Apisa
But, people who like to call themselves atheists realize they are outclassed by agnostic arguments...and resort to that petty stuff.
Theists and atheists both are "believers." Theists acknowledge that they are...and revel in it. Atheists pretend they are not...and have to live the lie.
Kind of amusing to watch...especially when you egg them on and see them squirm. — Frank Apisa
180 Proof
1.5k
... atheists realize they are outclassed by agnostic arguments...and resort to that petty stuff.
Atheists pretend they are not...and have to live the lie.
— Frank Apisa
"Petty stuff" like these ad hominems. — 180 Proof
3017amen
2.1k
But, people who like to call themselves atheists realize they are outclassed by agnostic arguments...and resort to that petty stuff.
Theists and atheists both are "believers." Theists acknowledge that they are...and revel in it. Atheists pretend they are not...and have to live the lie.
Kind of amusing to watch...especially when you egg them on and see them squirm.
— Frank Apisa
Thanks, Amen.
Agreed. The tale-tale is indeed, when they get angry and resort to ad hominem. That's a sure sign of frustration about their lack of justification(S).
Kind of like 180. ↪180 Proof — 3017amen
(It would not make sense for a person to call him/herself an "atheist" but still think it is more probably that there is a GOD than that there are none.. — Frank Apisa
EricH
170
↪Frank Apisa
(It would not make sense for a person to call him/herself an "atheist" but still think it is more probably that there is a GOD than that there are none..
— Frank Apisa
We're sort of in the same ballpark definition wise.
That said, this "either/or" aspect of your definition may need some adjustments. Suppose someone thinks it 49% probable that there is a God and 51% otherwise. By your definition this person is not an atheist, yes/no? If this person IS an atheist, then what is the percentage separating atheist & non-atheist?
Just my 2 cents. You could revise your definition so that if a person thinks there is a non zero probability of Gods, then that person is not an atheist.
BTW - I hope you see that this is partly tongue in cheek. . . — EricH
I would prefer that everyone just eliminate the use of descriptors in this area...and merely present his/her position without reference to theist, atheist, agnostic, ignostic, or the like. — Frank Apisa
No probability here. It ain't.Probably ain't gonna happen. — Frank Apisa
Belief in what, exactly, may I ask. I suspect belief in the material existence of. But there is also belief as belief - the Christian Creed at least. "We believe...". Going around saying God exists is ignorance in action, in terms of being a Christian - also a heresy.I threw belief out a long time ago. — Punshhh
Belief in God as presented in the human body of teaching. If one were to take all the gods believed in by people and distill it down to the essence in common between them. Any precise definition is an irrelevance for me. You see I see humanity very much in the sense of as one person subdivided into millions of individuals, we are the same, like clones. So what we think and believe is the same, with different accents. When one starts to analyse what we think and believe as in philosophy, or psychology, we are attempting to hold ourselves outside this being/person and look in from outside. I suggest that this analysis can distort our understanding of these beliefs and ideas and that philosophers and psychologists ought to seek a rounded perspective rather than a radical one, or they might retreat into their own little world.Belief in what, exactly, may I ask. I suspect belief in the material existence of. But there is also belief as belief - the Christian Creed at least. "We believe...". Going around saying God exists is ignorance in action, in terms of being a Christian - also a heresy.
Neither.Is our origin in a happenstance of dust, or a Shakespeare puts it, a "quintessence of dust".
Or is our origin by design, presuming some creator of some kind, which does not need to be defined.
So which is it? — Punshhh
It's a pseudo-question (lacks specificity, parameters, etc for determining what would count as correct answers) for starters. And philosophy concerns questions of concepts (analytical / dialectical descriptions) and not questions of how things are (theoretical explanations); assuming the latter is akin to a category mistake.It is self evident to me that philosophy cannot answer this question ...
But the question remains, whatever a philosopher says. What you say, is evidence that philosophy can't answer, or address the question, not that the question is invalid.It's a pseudo-question (lacks specificity, parameters, etc for determining what would count as correct answers) for starters.
"Evidence?" Okay. :roll:But the [pseudo] question remains, whatever a philosopher says. What you say, is evidence that philosophy can't answer, or address the question, not that the question is invalid. — Punshhh
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.