| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
J_Lazarus
Forum Leader
Joined: 17 Mar 2004
Posts: 1506
Local time: 10:17 PM
Location: Hudson, New York
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 3:45 pm Post subject: |
  |
|
| Jutter wrote: | | Where do you get the idea that I got that idea? I never claimed atheism is the fallback position purely because it negates theism; I merely said what the fallback position of each of those two definitions is. 1 proposes theism exists, while 2 proposes the existence of a theos. |
No, I said that you suggested that theism is the fallback position, not atheism. And I get that idea from when you said, "This formulation is rife with theistic bias. Not only is the existence of a god used as the fallback position, our atheist removing it from that picture (and if that's not a distinctly theistic perspective then please do tell me what is), it is also suggested that the atheist resolved this god/no god issue in good faith."
But there's is nothing about the common definition that suggests that theism is the fallback position. Atheism merely negates what the theist is claiming. For instance, if I said, "There's an apple in the basket," and you said, "No, there is no apple in the basket", you would be negating my claim, and that's what atheism is to theism. There is no presumption here about theism being the fallback position. If you cannot argue persuasively for your claim that there is no apple in the basket, no one would be justified in therefore believing that there really is an apple -- they would have to have good arguments for there being an apple in the basket themselves, and not merely rely on there being no case against them -- they'd need a case for their position as well. So there's nothing about atheism as it is commonly defined that assumes theism to be the fallback position. And it does not require that there is a God in order to say that there isn't one. I don't understand where you're getting all of this from.
| Quote: | | Definition 1. merely proposes the picture includes theISM. a belief in the existence of a god is being mentioned, and nowhere is it suggested said god indeed belongs in our view of the world. How you fail to see this, and even propose the opposite, is beyond me. (You CAN tell the difference between believing there is a god, and god I sincerely hope?) Number two DOES begin with laying out a context that includes a god, since the atheists is described as someone who strays from this norm by omitting said god. So again, number one merely describes the atheist as lacking theism, and makes no statements about the universe lacking a god, or that it's supposed to have one to begin with. |
The only way I can make sense of this at all is if you're bringing up a point about noncognitivism - where atheism on your definition can include noncognitivism whereas atheism as it is standardly defined assumes that noncognitivism is false. But that's hardly a problem - my point from the beginning was that noncognitivism is a separate position by itself, which is exactly how it has developed historically. The well-known noncognitivists of the past, Carnap, Ayer, et. al. - were just as against atheism as they were against theism. They argued with Otto Neurath until they were blue in the face and finally got him to reject his materialism. They were against the meaningfulness of all of it from the start - and explicitly critical of atheism.
Now, if you can tell the difference between "believing in a god" and God, you should be able to understand that atheism as it is commonly defined refers to God only as an abstraction, a concept, and we are asking whether or not that concept is exemplified in the world. So atheism as commonly defined looks at theism and says, "You say there's a God? No there isn't." And that's it. If you have a problem because you're a noncognitivist, then again, everything I've said above applies in your case. Atheism as commonly understood and noncognitivism as commonly understood have been explicit rivals historically, starting with the neopositivists who started the whole "meaningfulness" debate in the first place.
| Quote: | | And yes I'm keeping my leg straight on that one. Number two "someone who does believe there is no god" clearly DOES propose a context that includes a god, because the atheist is described as someone omitting this god. In fact, an atheist described as someone who beliefs a god should be omitted ONLY makes sense within the context of a picture that includes a god. |
This is meaningless and confused. Again, there is nothing in the second definition that requires that God exists. God is merely a concept that atheists are saying does not exist in the real world. For instance, take the Blasphemy Challenge. Were all the people who took the Blasphemy Challenge saying that there is a God, when they said that there was no such thing? That's what it sounds like you're saying. Jutter, you would tell anyone who asked you that there is no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny. When you say that, does that commit you to the idea that there is an Easter Bunny and a Santa Claus? No, it doesn't. So I have no idea where you're getting all of this from. And again, if your point is about noncognitivism, then that point does not pose a difficulty, as per above.
| Quote: | | This makes the perspective atheism is described from in 2. an undeniably theistic one. |
So then you believe in the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus because you deny that they are real.
| Quote: | You're proposing that the atheist first believe- hokus pokusses a god into the picture, only to hokus pokus it out again.
Considering that refraining from step one suffices this is absurd imho. |
There is no "hocus-pocus"ing God into the picture. The only thing that atheists "hocus-pocus" into the picture is the concept of God in their heads, and then they go on and deny that this concept is exemplified in the real world. Again, just like we do with Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.
- JL
_________________
Heaven's not a place that you go when you die,
It's that moment in life when you actually feel alive.
So live for the moment.
And take this advice, live by every word.
Love is completely real, so forget everything that you have heard.
And live for the moment, now.
- Spill Canvas |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
Pikachu
Forum Master
Joined: 17 Jan 2006
Posts: 2011
Local time: 12:17 PM
Location: E=mc²
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 4:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One day science will prove that god does not exist. That will be the same day that God proves science doesn't exist.
_________________
In Dog We Trust |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J_Lazarus
Forum Leader
Joined: 17 Mar 2004
Posts: 1506
Local time: 10:17 PM
Location: Hudson, New York
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 4:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pikachu wrote: | | One day science will prove that god does not exist. That will be the same day that God proves science doesn't exist. |
What a helpful post this was.
Or...not really.
- JL
_________________
Heaven's not a place that you go when you die,
It's that moment in life when you actually feel alive.
So live for the moment.
And take this advice, live by every word.
Love is completely real, so forget everything that you have heard.
And live for the moment, now.
- Spill Canvas |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jutter
Quixotic Cloggy
Joined: 26 Jul 2003
Posts: 6734
Local time: 3:17 AM
Location: Den Helder, the Netherlands
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 4:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| J_Lazarus wrote: | | Jutter wrote: | | Where do you get the idea that I got that idea? I never claimed atheism is the fallback position purely because it negates theism; I merely said what the fallback position of each of those two definitions is. 1 proposes theism exists, while 2 proposes the existence of a theos. |
No, I said that you suggested that theism is the fallback position, not atheism. |
I know and my response was WTF? If this regards my judgement about 2.
Someone who believes there is no god.
No what?
No God Laz.
A picture including a god is clearly being proposed, because it's the only context in which it would make sense to mention the omission of one.
And what is a perspective that proposes a picture including a god? Theistic by any chance?
| Quote: | | The only thing that atheists "hocus-pocus" into the picture is the concept of God in their heads |
Of what is believed by theists to be god to be precise. That's a VERY rellevant difference. One that would be too tedious to type out every time you discus theism, but it needs to be made now I think. Ultimately it's not you who places that god there. Without theism no such mind exersize would be of rellevance. When you ponder 'a god concept' you are momentarily and hypotheticly aplying a theistic perspective, because drawing god into the picture IS theism. And it's a description of what an atheist is that we're after, and I think it's better described by refraining from theism, than by hypotheticly engaging in theism.
Shit there must be SOME way in wich I CAN make myself clear.
When you're one of ten people in a room, and...
- the other nine lift up an object. That means you did not lift up something. It does NOT mean you DID lift up NOTHING.
- the other nine believe there is a god. That means you don't believe there is a god. It dos not mean you do believe there is no god.
And yes, we can ponder theistic propositions, and explicitely judge them (and the arguments behind them) flawed, but was it ultimately a god who's existence you passed judgement on? Or were you passing judgement on the validity of what others preceive to be the existence of a god? And do i exagerate or miss the boat in your eyes when I call this difference rellevant?
Even IF you are superknowledgeable about why supposed theistic grounds for believing are so sucky, does that turn a subsequent refraining from god-related claims into a god-related claim? Does a strong motive for standing still turn it into "moving nowhere"?
And perhaps one more important question.
If others insist that you are omitting a god, because they -unlike you- include one. Does that mean you must accept this status quo also? Is one, void of theistic bias, truelly omitting what one doesn't include in the first place?
_________________
~ Let us be reasonable ~
Congratulations: you are paracorrect about the supernatural.
*"If there were nobody listening to gods anymore, there would be nothing left for us to do,...
... then to finally start listening to each other."
*As any gamer will tell you: God-mode is a cheat-code.
Last edited by Jutter on Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:06 pm; edited 12 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jutter
Quixotic Cloggy
Joined: 26 Jul 2003
Posts: 6734
Local time: 3:17 AM
Location: Den Helder, the Netherlands
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| J_Lazarus wrote: | | Pikachu wrote: | | One day science will prove that god does not exist. That will be the same day that God proves science doesn't exist. |
What a helpful post this was.
Or...not really.
- JL |
Not, because god is "the other IT" There's everything, and then there's god. Everything exists, and then there's what god does which somehow can't classify as what we know as 'existence', without the pesky consequence of nonexistence, being everywhere without being anywhere. There's nothing to disprove to people who've been taught that being an impossibility by every conceivable standard and a load of gibberish to boot are no obstacles for god.
_________________
~ Let us be reasonable ~
Congratulations: you are paracorrect about the supernatural.
*"If there were nobody listening to gods anymore, there would be nothing left for us to do,...
... then to finally start listening to each other."
*As any gamer will tell you: God-mode is a cheat-code. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
Joined: 02 Apr 2003
Posts: 12865
Local time: 6:17 PM
Location: SoCal, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| excidius wrote: | | I think Jutter's point remains. If a word's meaning is strictly determined by popular usage, and any other usage constitutes a "misuse," then language could not have evolved. As soon as anyone presents a different usage for a term, it is invalidated by this notion. |
| Ophis wrote: | | Language generally does not evolve by someone suddenly presenting a different usage for a term. Such a change would be unusually artificial. Words gradually change over time, rather than by a sudden decision to change a word's meaning followed by a campaign to get others to recognise the new meaning, as has happened with the redefinition of "atheism". |
That can happen, and does happen in politics all the time.
_________________
Namaste,
CET 
The Spiritual Atheist
"Much of the suffering in the world comes from the delusion that we are separate from one another." - Gautama Buddha
"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music." - George Carlin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
Joined: 02 Apr 2003
Posts: 12865
Local time: 6:17 PM
Location: SoCal, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lumpymunk wrote: | | NeuralLick wrote: | To make it even more complicated, I'm technically an "ignostic." I think that both theism and atheism are false in the sense that "God" is such a meaningless concept that one cannot even believe or disbelieve in it coherently. Thus, it's a more abstracted, metaposition. Essentially, I deny the belief that one can be capable of believing in God or otherwise. A "theist" is someone who thinks they believe in God. Through dialogue, it's usually easily revealed that this concept is simply incoherent.
In common discourse, I tell people I'm "basically an atheist." |
Even so, the christian god is clearly laid out several different ways and made "knowable" to its cult members, you begin in the bottom left of my diagram, and you've worked your way in to the bottom right. You're an Atheist "with respect to the judeo Christian god" You only call yourself an agnostic because you know you can't disprove the existence of a deistic type of god directly. |
Yes, the judeo-christian god is clearly laid out, which is why we have tens of thousands of different sects of jews and christians. 
_________________
Namaste,
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
"Much of the suffering in the world comes from the delusion that we are separate from one another." - Gautama Buddha
"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music." - George Carlin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
Joined: 02 Apr 2003
Posts: 12865
Local time: 6:17 PM
Location: SoCal, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| J_Lazarus wrote: | Well that would certainly be ideal - i.e. that we kept the meaning of words exactly as they are now, because things would be much clearer that way. So my argument is simply that we should not help perpetuate the confusion, which is exactly what has resulted on this board over the last few years. Language will naturally evolve - we can't help that. This is why language is so tricky and subtle, and why there is so much misunderstanding in communication. Some philosophers have gone so far as to say that almost every single philosophical problem is a problem that arises due to language. Obviously this is not a very good thing overall, so why promote it by forcing even more changes in terms? Why insist on forcefully going back to the etymological meaning if it just creates more confusion about language? Why insist on using unconventional definitions for terms if it simply means a decrease in clear communication? There's simply no good reason to do this, and the result is only unnecessary confusion.
- JL |
_________________
Namaste,
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
"Much of the suffering in the world comes from the delusion that we are separate from one another." - Gautama Buddha
"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music." - George Carlin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
Joined: 02 Apr 2003
Posts: 12865
Local time: 6:17 PM
Location: SoCal, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pikachu wrote: | | One day science will prove that god does not exist. That will be the same day that God proves science doesn't exist. |
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn’t thought of that," and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.
_________________
Namaste,
CET
The Spiritual Atheist
"Much of the suffering in the world comes from the delusion that we are separate from one another." - Gautama Buddha
"Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music." - George Carlin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jutter
Quixotic Cloggy
Joined: 26 Jul 2003
Posts: 6734
Local time: 3:17 AM
Location: Den Helder, the Netherlands
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CET wrote: | | J_Lazarus wrote: | Well that would certainly be ideal - i.e. that we kept the meaning of words exactly as they are now, because things would be much clearer that way. So my argument is simply that we should not help perpetuate the confusion, which is exactly what has resulted on this board over the last few years. Language will naturally evolve - we can't help that. This is why language is so tricky and subtle, and why there is so much misunderstanding in communication. Some philosophers have gone so far as to say that almost every single philosophical problem is a problem that arises due to language. Obviously this is not a very good thing overall, so why promote it by forcing even more changes in terms? Why insist on forcefully going back to the etymological meaning if it just creates more confusion about language? Why insist on using unconventional definitions for terms if it simply means a decrease in clear communication? There's simply no good reason to do this, and the result is only unnecessary confusion.
- JL |
|
I think the common use creates confusion. I'm not omitting what I don't include in the first place, so describing me as someone who believes there is no god is bullshit theistic distortion. I see no reason to asume a god-created universe, which is exactly why theists believe I'm omitting one.
Does not mean I , as an atheist, have to agree?
To me that's catering to, and taking up the butt, the the theistic status quo that a god created universe is the norm and atheist should be described as deviations of this norm. like in my nr 2 definition "...does believe there is no god"
Fuck that. Theists are the ones who think a god belongs in the picture, not me.
"Someone who does not believe there is a god"
That works for me. It doesn't base itself on the assumption there's a god to omit, but merely mention the theism I refrain from.
I'm not omitting anything, BECAUSE I don't believe there's a god to include.
What hasn't even been adressed by me yet, is the problem of the place agnosticism has in the classic three way atheist/agnostic/theist split... some theists are agnostic, they don't know but have faith, and agnostic atheists for who not knowing is reason to refrain from theism. Good luck applying the three way split on that.
_________________
~ Let us be reasonable ~
Congratulations: you are paracorrect about the supernatural.
*"If there were nobody listening to gods anymore, there would be nothing left for us to do,...
... then to finally start listening to each other."
*As any gamer will tell you: God-mode is a cheat-code. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nogods
Joined: 03 Jul 2004
Posts: 1898
Local time: 12:17 PM
Location: Vienna, Austria
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| excidius wrote: | | nogods wrote: | | excidius wrote: |
If a word's meaning is strictly determined by popular usage, and any other usage constitutes a "misuse," then language could not have evolved. As soon as anyone presents a different usage for a term, it is invalidated by this notion.
If someone presents just one useage of a word, then indeed it is invalidated by this notion. Which I think proves, rather then disproves Lazarus' point. |
Convention, by convention  means more then one. |
Well, a convention has to start somewhere, and as soon as it starts, it is invalidated by this notion. A new term doesn't come about because 50.1% (or whatever arbitrary cutoff you use to denote "convention") of the population suddenly and instantaneously invokes a new meaning for it. It usually starts because a small group used it, and it catches on in the populace at large like an urban legend. |
Not sure this changes what I said.
Well it is not a science, so no it is not a case of 50.1%. Language does not work that way.
You yourself admit my very point when you say It usually starts because a small group used it, and it catches on in the populace at large like an urban legend. ie., it catches on in the populace. In other words if a word has a conventional meaning within the populace has a whole, that conventional meaning only changes if - and when - the larger group accepts it.
Words rarely change because some group decided to give it a new meaning. The word 'queer' for example did not become just another label for homosexuals because the homosexual community decided to try and apply it to themselves. The word queer had been used in a derogative way to apply to gays for a long time, at least in the UK. What the gay community did was to apply the word to themselves, thus removing the initial negative connotations. It worked because there was already some corrolation between the words queer and homosexual. (It could have failed - which is why as a gay rights activist I never supported the move.)
One of the reasons I do not believe Bright will catch on as a new word for atheist is because there is no conventional use connecting the two terms, it is purely an artificial invention. This does not mean it is bound to fail, just that is it less likely to succeed.
| nogods wrote: | | excidius wrote: |
One cannot have a language spoken by just one person. Therefore what an individual thinks, or a small group of diverse people within a wider linguistic community thinks, does not define a word. |
I would beg to differ there. It is not unusual that a small group of people use a term in a clearly well-defined sense as compared to the population at large which may use the term in a muddled sense. An example I used earlier was the word "theory" to an academic vs. a layman. Clearly, laymen outnumber academics, but the sense in which most laypeople use the word "theory" to mean "unconfirmed guess," while I wouldn't say it is a wrong definition (I've maintained the view that definitions are arbitrary and thus can't be wrong), I do think such a definition makes people more conducive to making equivocation fallacies, when they go on to declare for instance that plate tectonics, by virtue of being a theory, is unsubstantiated. Clearly the definition is muddled if they are going to equivocate these two different meanings. |
The term theory means both , to the lay-populace theory means "unconfirmed guess" and I am sure you will even find scientitsts, when they are talking down the pup with their friends, will use the term in the wider conventional sense. I am sure a scientist may well say to his pals down the pub, after a few bevies, "I have a theory about who shot JFK." In that context it means uncomfirmed guess, and I am fairly surwe his drinking pals are not going to quizz him over his use of the word theory in that setting, just because he happens to be a scientist.
Just to confuse things even more scientists do have a word that means 'theory' in the more lay conventional understanding, and that is 'theoretical'. In other words it is a guess, based on what is known, but as yet is unconfirmed.
There is some confusing within the wider community about what scientists mean when they use the word theory. But both users of the word are conventional to both communities.
The word atheist has a perfectly good meaning, it means not to believe in God. That is what all understand the word to mean, now in a phlosophical argument one may want to define the word in slightly different ways - but that as little to do with how a word is conventionally understood.
If you wish to communicate clearly with the populace as a whole then one should use convention - it is what makes language work!
| excidius wrote: |
Again, I'm not saying that one meaning for theory is somehow more correct than the other. I've stated previously that popular usage denotes popular meaning, but sometimes there are more specific, non-popular definitions that can and should be invoked in other contexts. |
Agreed, know your audiance and speak the convention they understand. If you have to start teaching people what 'their' convention should be (as desirable as one may think that is), you have already lost their attention.
nogods
_________________
They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
J_Lazarus
Forum Leader
Joined: 17 Mar 2004
Posts: 1506
Local time: 10:17 PM
Location: Hudson, New York
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jutter wrote: | I know and my response was WTF? If this regards my judgement about 2.
Someone who believes there is no god.
No what?
No God Laz.
A picture including a god is clearly being proposed, because it's the only context in which it would make sense to mention the omission of one.
And what is a perspective that proposes a picture including a god? Theistic by any chance? |
Jutter is a person who believes there is no Santa Claus.
No what?
No Santa Claus, of course.
A picture including Santa Claus is clearly being proposed, because it's the only context in which it would make sense to mention the omission of Santa Claus.
And what is a perspective that proposes a picture including Santa Claus? A Santa-Claus filled worldview, by any chance?
---------
Therefore, by virtue of the above argument, I propose that any position that says there is no Santa Claus is philosophically flawed. Instead, we should simply talk about positions that lack a positive belief in Santa Claus. But never, by any means, should you say that there is no Santa Claus, because then that means that you really think there is one.
....Yeah.
- JL
_________________
Heaven's not a place that you go when you die,
It's that moment in life when you actually feel alive.
So live for the moment.
And take this advice, live by every word.
Love is completely real, so forget everything that you have heard.
And live for the moment, now.
- Spill Canvas |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nogods
Joined: 03 Jul 2004
Posts: 1898
Local time: 12:17 PM
Location: Vienna, Austria
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ophis wrote: | | Jutter wrote: | | Number two DOES begin with laying out a context that includes a god, since the atheists is described as someone who strays from this norm by omitting said god. So again, number one merely describes the atheist as lacking theism, and makes no statements about the universe lacking a god, or that it's supposed to have one to begin with. |
No, that is senseless. "Strong" atheism, or "atheism" as understood by the common definition, only requires that the concept of a god exists, so that the objective existence of gods can be denied. Starting from a theistic worldview is unnecessary. The idea that theism can be made the logical standard position by defining words in a certain way is insane.
Basically, number two lays out a context that includes the existence of a concept of what a god would be, as opposed to a context that includes the objective existence of a god. |
I do not understand Jutter's point here at all.
Is Jutter saying that for him the word atheist should include the meaning," God may exist, atheists just do not believe he does." Such a statement seems to be nothing better then willful ignorance, which is what the more sophisticated theist actually accuse atheists of!
That is not what I mean when I define myself as an atheist nor do I suspect it is what most atheists mean, or what people understand when they hear the term atheist.
I understand what theists mean by the word God, i recognise the concept - which s why I reject it.
I presume most theists understand that I am denying the existence of their deity when I call my self an atheist.
nogods
_________________
They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nogods
Joined: 03 Jul 2004
Posts: 1898
Local time: 12:17 PM
Location: Vienna, Austria
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jutter wrote: |
When you're one of ten people in a room, and...
- the other nine lift up an object. That means you did not lift up something. It does NOT mean you DID lift up NOTHING.
- the other nine believe there is a god. That means you don't believe there is a god. It dos not mean you do believe there is no god. |
The atheist in the room would not be 'lifting up nothing', he would be pointing to the theists and saying, "You have lifted up nothing, your hands are empty - there is nothing there."
We would not be saying, You theists have lifted up something, but we have choosen not to lift it." If asked by the theists why we have not lifted up the object (God), we would say because there is nothing to lift." We would not be saying "We do not believe in lifting up God objects".
Personally I have no problem with theists so long as they show tolerance. I am an atheist (not an anti-theist).
nogods
_________________
They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jutter
Quixotic Cloggy
Joined: 26 Jul 2003
Posts: 6734
Local time: 3:17 AM
Location: Den Helder, the Netherlands
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 9:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| J_Lazarus wrote: | | Jutter wrote: | I know and my response was WTF? If this regards my judgement about 2.
Someone who believes there is no god.
No what?
No God Laz.
A picture including a god is clearly being proposed, because it's the only context in which it would make sense to mention the omission of one.
And what is a perspective that proposes a picture including a god? Theistic by any chance? |
Jutter is a person who believes there is no Santa Claus.
No what?
No Santa Claus, of course. |
Sneaky of you to turn that around.
Here I've been making a carefull distinction between two formats, and then you go and switch from one to the other on me as if I wouldn't notice.
No I would be someone who does not believe there is a Santa, not someone who does believe there is no Santa
Does the former propose the existence of santa? No it merely proposes people who do. Difference. Not the same.
THis is the difference between theiISM and theOS we're talking about here people. Hello, is this thing switched on? Am I talking DUTCH??
Between a person who DOES believe in santa and person who doesn't, it's ONLY the former person who believes santa is being omitted. To the other there's -not santa- but merely what the other preceives to be Santa, which, I sadly enough have to keep on repeating and repeating is NOT the same thing. If it were the same we might as well pack up the whole circus because theism would be the correct position.
Likewise an atheist does not propose "no god exists" but rather that 'what the theist preceives to be god' does not exists.
What a theist preceives to be god, and an actual god -if such a thing could exist in the first place (being stupendously generous there)- are, again, not to be regarded equals.
A theist believing that an atheist is omitting a god is understandable, and -fuck it- I'm going to leave it at that because I'm growing tired of having to explain why it's preposterous for an atheist to asume that an an omision of god is indeed what they're engaging in as well, thus "believing there is no god" describing them fittingly. Keep catering to the stupid mindgame sucker. If the insistant theist claims there's a god you're omitting, just be a good little boy and agree that you sure are. I'll stick to omitting theISM, being someone who does not believe there is a god, thank you very much.
_________________
~ Let us be reasonable ~
Congratulations: you are paracorrect about the supernatural.
*"If there were nobody listening to gods anymore, there would be nothing left for us to do,...
... then to finally start listening to each other."
*As any gamer will tell you: God-mode is a cheat-code. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
