You're All A Bunch Of Nazis!

[kudukid]

I though it was the belief "That God (sic) does not exist.".

And how is that not an absolute position?

You do not believe that a God exists.

How much more absolute can you get?

[kudukid]

Yes.

And the reason why atheists' position is always relative to man made religions is that man made religions invented the concept of a creator being.

Any belief in a nebulous and hazy 'spiritiual' creator force is the concern of the individual, not a religion and nothing to do with the definition of atheism.

Did gravity exist before man made the concept of gravity?

An atheist does discount the belief in a nebulous hazy spiritual force IMO.

[Oliver Sutton]

And how is that not an absolute position?

You do not believe that a God exists.

How much more absolute can you get?

Believe that no god exists.

[Skirmish]

Well yes it does but when did the catholic church last round up 3 or 4 million people and gas them?

I wonder how many catholics around the world have died due to HIV/AIDS caused by their 'protective' (no pun intended) religion forbidding them to have protected sex?

[shipbuilder]

The idea of an intelligent creator as a theory for how we came to be is one invented by man, as is evolution. I don't believe in the theory of an intelligent creator as put forward by religion, therefore I'm an atheist - literally without faith or belief.

That simply isn't the same as saying that I know the theory is false. It is not an absolute. This is the crux of the argument.

For example -

"I don't believe that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK."

"I know that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't kill JFK."

It is clear to me that these two statements are not saying the same thing.

The idea of a 'higher force' is completely personal and can be changed to whatever the believer wants it to, making any discussion pointless. Atheism is a reaction to God as conceptualised by organised religions.

[kudukid]

The idea of an intelligent creator as a theory for how we came to be is one invented by man, as is evolution. I don't believe in the theory of an intelligent creator as put forward by religion, therefore I'm an atheist - literally without faith or belief.

That simply isn't the same as saying that I know the theory is false. It is not an absolute. This is the crux of the argument.

For example -

"I don't believe that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK."

"I know that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't kill JFK."

It is clear to me that these two statements are not saying the same thing.

The idea of a 'higher force' is completely personal and can be changed to whatever the believer wants it to, making any discussion pointless. Atheism is a reaction to God as conceptualised by organised religions.

So by your logic you can be an atheist and believe in a higher being, so long as it isn't one proposed by an organised religion?

[athe]

Yes, saying that you are an atheist whilst actually being something else would just complicate the argumant unnecessarly.

theological noncognitivism is a subset of atheism - it is not unreasonable to have made the simplification I did, especially as few know what TN is.

A quick wiki says this:

As with ignosticism, the consistent theological noncognitivist awaits a coherent definition of the word God (or of any other metaphysical utterance purported to be discussable) before being able to engage in arguments for or against God's existence.

Seems like semantics and a sitting on the fence on the fence position

See - there is the problem, because now you have taken a quote out of context in a wikipedia page that doesn't really do the topic justice. For what it's worth I subscribe to attribute based TN using the language of that wiki page. It is most certainly not a sitting on the fence position. YHWH could present himself in front of me right now and there is no way he could prove to me that he is the creator. Any power he has that is great enough to prove it is also great enough to fool me, so I have no basis to make a rational judgement and must therefore apply Occam.

How did you manage to have a religous debate with the priest without being able to discuss God?

Who said we couldn't discuss God - he has his position, I have mine. That being said we actually discussed religion which has precious little to do with go, and far more to do with worldly power.

I would ask what your conclusion is but it seems that being a theological noncognitivist negates the opportunity for you to answer.

It is open to the vicar to convert me. He didn't manage on this occasion, but he is welcome to try in the future.

It seems illogical to claim to know 100% either way IMO.

Which is why TN is the answer!

[athe]

In my experience it is at the point of percieved imminent death that one decide's whether one is an athiests or not.

It's there that the atheists amongst us will start to believe real quick in a devine spirit some men call God!

I would maintain that there are no Athiests before God.

I have had two relatively close calls. One a fall whilst climbing left little time for thought, but the other, sitting on the bottom of a capsized bottom on my own floating out to sea, left plenty of time. Neither occasioned the need for a prayer.

[athe]

Again, I totally agree. So why say God doesn't exist? (athesim)

Well it said only two of each animal, not all of them but that would just be pedantic to point that out

I said earlier that most atheists base the atheism relative to man made interpretations of a creator, I find once you get past those the idea of a creator, be it nature, Physics, Tea pots whatever seems easier to accept, much easier than atheism in my case.

You clearly don't know your bible very well.

Genesis 7 (KJV)

1And the LORD said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation.

2Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.

[ccc]

I am a Nazi Athiest God.

All bow down before me.

[athe]

We have done this before.

I take atheism to be a disbelief/denial in a superior being. (whatever form that may be)

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist

Then you take a very narrow view that is only one of about fifteen different acknowledged forms of atheism.

[athe]

But hasn't it been proven that our universe did have a beginning?

Around 14 billion years?

So if our universe had a beginning, so must the rules of our universe.

Keep up - our universe may have had a beginning but that has to be put within the framework of the multiverse.

[athe]

It'll work like this for you.

Unless you are taken in your sleep or suddenly in an accident of some sort you'll have time to ruminate your situation.

Let's say some dreadful building collapse has crushed your legs, so badly that not only do they not work anymore and are trapped, but your life blood is bleeding away into the ground. Assuming the pain isn't interfering with your cognitive function you will understand you only have minutes to live, possibly seconds. Rescue by humans is not on the table, or extremely unlikely.

I can confidently predict that at that point you and 100% of all people will start praying tervently to any god you believe will help you. Personal experience always wins hands down on armchair bashing and theorising.

Next time I hear of someone in that position returning to life and saying, "Well actually it never bothered me as there was no logical reason to pray to xyz", I'll believe you.

I was on a boat, solo. It was dismasted and capsized. I sat on the bottom and drifted out of sight of land. I had not told anyone I was planning to go sailing (stupid teenager that I was). I was very luckily to manage to flag down a passing fishing boat - the only boat I had seen since I went belly up several hours before. I was extremely scared and thought there was a strong chance I would not make it. I did not pray - it did not even occur to me to do so.

Good enough?

[ccc]

You have only one competitor left:

Zod is nothing. In Nazi athiest God terms I am Barcelona and he is Forfar Athletic.

[shipbuilder]

So by your logic you can be an atheist and believe in a higher being, so long as it isn't one proposed by an organised religion?

The idea of a higher being was proposed by organised religion in the first place. When people talk of spirituality and higher forces it is a personal feeling, not an identifiable belief shared with others and so is meaningless in this discussion. If God can mean a million different feelings in a million different people, then God can mean anything at all and so discussion is pointless. Perhaps that makes me a theological noncognitivist?

[kudukid]

name='athe' date='19 September 2010 - 11:29 PM' timestamp='1284928179' post='2716294']

See - there is the problem, because now you have taken a quote out of context in a wikipedia page that doesn't really do the topic justice. For what it's worth I subscribe to attribute based TN using the language of that wiki page. It is most certainly not a sitting on the fence position. YHWH could present himself in front of me right now and there is no way he could prove to me that he is the creator. Any power he has that is great enough to prove it is also great enough to fool me, so I have no basis to make a rational judgement and must therefore apply Occam.

So if YHWH presented in front of you and he also presented your dead great grandfather (who died in WW1) who proceeded to tell you wonderous things about what he had been up to for the past 100 years and DNA tests proved it was your great grandfather; you would apply occams razor?

I feel that you are being too previous with your razor, how would you explain the above adequately without introducing further complexity?

What is the rational conclusion that you reach?

All hypothetical of course but you must have had these thought patterns in coming to your conclusion.

[kudukid]

Then you take a very narrow view that is only one of about fifteen different acknowledged forms of atheism.

Atheism = non belief in a God (sic)

Any other sub division is just sitting on the fence and not having the courage of convictions IMO.

[kudukid]

The idea of a higher being was proposed by organised religion in the first place. When people talk of spirituality and higher forces it is a personal feeling, not an identifiable belief shared with others and so is meaningless in this discussion. If God can mean a million different feelings in a million different people, then God can mean anything at all and so discussion is pointless. Perhaps that makes me a theological noncognitivist?

So you are an atheist who is spiritual and believes in higher forces?

[shipbuilder]

So you are an atheist who is spiritual and believes in higher forces?

No.

[the_duke_of_hazzard]

LINK

How many people have died in Africa as a result of the ban on the use of condoms?

LINK

And the lies spread by the church that they are ineffective.

[the_duke_of_hazzard]

So if YHWH presented in front of you and he also presented your dead great grandfather (who died in WW1) who proceeded to tell you wonderous things about what he had been up to for the past 100 years and DNA tests proved it was your great grandfather; you would apply occams razor?

I feel that you are being too previous with your razor, how would you explain the above adequately without introducing further complexity?

What is the rational conclusion that you reach?

That I'm hallucinating through grief.

[the_duke_of_hazzard]

There were one or two people who didn't.

More than that - I suggest you read up. And those people didn't have the resources and influence of the Catholic church, nor the specific alleged purpose to influnce the world for good.

Fact is, the rational, self-interested and materialistic govermnents of western europe did a better job of fighting evil than the church.

[the_duke_of_hazzard]

It'll work like this for you.

Unless you are taken in your sleep or suddenly in an accident of some sort you'll have time to ruminate your situation.

Let's say some dreadful building collapse has crushed your legs, so badly that not only do they not work anymore and are trapped, but your life blood is bleeding away into the ground. Assuming the pain isn't interfering with your cognitive function you will understand you only have minutes to live, possibly seconds. Rescue by humans is not on the table, or extremely unlikely.

I can confidently predict that at that point you and 100% of all people will start praying tervently to any god you believe will help you. Personal experience always wins hands down on armchair bashing and theorising.

Next time I hear of someone in that position returning to life and saying, "Well actually it never bothered me as there was no logical reason to pray to xyz", I'll believe you.

So what does this prove exactly? That humans will believe any old shit if they're desperate?

[Riedquat]

So what does this prove exactly? That humans will believe any old shit if they're desperate?

I'm more concerned with people whose view of the way the world works is determined by "I like the sound of this" rather than "This is what things look like." This was emphasised to me once in another "Is religion a load of nonsense?" debate when I said that I see no reason to think that anything happens after you die, that there is no meaning or purpose to life, the universe, and everything, it just is, and so on. The reply I got was along the lines of "How can you live with a view like that?", as if how appealing an idea is should count for more than what evidence (or lack of) I can see for it.

[Oliver Sutton]

Atheism = non belief in a God (sic)

You've changed your definition AGAIN.

Any other sub division is just sitting on the fence and not having the courage of convictions IMO.

So you should just believe in anything however ludicrous just to avoid "sitting on the fence" or having no "courage of convictions".

On the one hand we have "an absolute stance", then we're "sitting on the fence".

Are these compatible?