2 edits
Originally posted by avalanchethecatSo your opinion is incorrect? or you simply don't know? If you don't know or that you find that there is no compelling evidence in your case you are agnostic despite your pretensions, not a full blown case of atheism as has overtaken great King Rat and Googlefudge.
You didn't watch the video. You should.
Do I believe my intellectual stance is correct? No, it's just my opinion.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis is gibberish, in every sense of the word.
If its an intellectual stance and thus a belief in the non existence of deities whether you like it or not. Simply calling it a lack of belief does not negate this and is simply a rather transparent semantic argument.
If its an intellectual stance and thus a belief in the non existence of deities whether you like it or not.
"If it[']s an intellectual stance..."
Atheism may or may not be 'an intellectual stance'. [dependent on quite what you mean by intellectual stance]
Some people lack belief simply because they have never thought about it, I struggle to see that as an
'intellectual stance'... Others lack belief because they just don't like the idea of gods, which while I sympathise
with that view, is hardly an intellectual one.
"...and thus a belief in the non existence of deities..."
So all intellectual stances are beliefs in the non-existence of deities? [also, do you not remember the IF you
started the sentence with? 😛 ]
This does not follow. If someone makes a claim that a proposition [P] is true, and I have no evidence or basis for
accepting that P is in fact true [or false] then the only intellectually sound position is to say that you lack a belief
in the truth or falsity of the claim P.
YOU are claiming that by not believing P to be true, that you MUST therefore believe that P is false.
This is the kind of stupid and obviously wrong mistake that the video in the OP was talking about.
Simply calling it a lack of belief does not negate this and is simply a rather transparent semantic argument.
No. Changing the meaning of these words changes the substance of the debate and this is therefore a substantive
and not semantic argument.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieMy opinion may be incorrect. I also hold the opinion that your definition of 'agnostic' is not correct. I tend towards agnosticism as well, but that's according to the generally defined meaning of the word rather than your definition.
So your opinion is incorrect? or you simply don't know? If you don't know or that you find that there is no compelling evidence in your case you are agnostic despite your pretensions, not a full blown case of atheism as has overtaken great King Rat and Googlefudge.
In order to clarify that... agnosticism is actually a belief position. It's the belief that nothing is or can be known about the existence or nature of a god or gods.
1 edit
Originally posted by googlefudgeThe first problem is that the statement “atheism is just non-belief in God” proves too much. What do I mean? Well, on this definition my cat is an atheist, because it does not believe in God. (I sometimes suspect cats believe they are God, but that’s another story entirely.[2]) Likewise potatoes and small rocks are also atheists, because they, too, do not possess a belief in a deity of any kind.
This is gibberish, in every sense of the word.If its an intellectual stance and thus a belief in the non existence of deities whether you like it or not.
"[b]If it[']s an intellectual stance..."
Atheism may or may not be 'an intellectual stance'. [dependent on quite what you mean by intellectual stance]
Some people l ...[text shortened]... ges the substance of the debate and this is therefore a substantive
and not semantic argument.[/b]
When I have pointed this out to atheists, I usually receive a response along these lines: “But a potato can’t believe anything”. To which I reply: “So you’re now saying that atheism is the lack of belief in God by a creature that has the ability to form beliefs?” This is a different claim entirely—indeed, it’s a positive claim. The atheist is now claiming to believe that the external world really exists (thus she is rejecting metaphysical idealism), that other minds exist, that the human mind can form beliefs, and that our cognitive faculties are broadly reliable.[3] Each of those is a hotly debated area in philosophy.
Suddenly what looked a simple statement of non-belief (I don’t believe in God) has sprouted a whole series of positive claims, popping up like mushrooms after a rainstorm. I have not yet encountered an atheist who believes that positive claims do not need to be argued for (indeed, atheists are fond of crying ‘Evidence!’ whenever confronted with a religious believer) and so it is the atheist’s job to give evidence for each of the philosophical positions they are encamped on. If they are not willing to do the hard reasoning, well, then, they can take their place alongside the cat, the rock, and the potato.
http://www.rzim.eu/the-scandanavian-sceptic-or-why-atheism-is-a-belief-system
Originally posted by avalanchethecatdefinitions? I have my own definitions! 😀
My opinion may be incorrect. I also hold the opinion that your definition of 'agnostic' is not correct. I tend towards agnosticism as well, but that's according to the generally defined meaning of the word rather than your definition.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSeriously Robbie, you should watch the video.
The first problem is that the statement “atheism is just non-belief in God” proves too much. What do I mean? Well, on this definition my cat is an atheist, because it does not believe in God. (I sometimes suspect cats believe they are God, but that’s another story entirely.[2]) Likewise potatoes and small rocks are also atheists, because they, too, d ...[text shortened]... and the potato.
http://www.rzim.eu/the-scandanavian-sceptic-or-why-atheism-is-a-belief-system
Originally posted by Proper KnobI have no ego, i have transcended myself entirely. You on the other hand seem to display a rather unsavoury egotism.
As I expected, your stance hasn't changed. You're just fibbing because your ego can't take the fact you admitted to being closed minded and ignorant. Same old same old.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou haven't watched the video.
The first problem is that the statement “atheism is just non-belief in God” proves too much. What do I mean? Well, on this definition my cat is an atheist, because it does not believe in God. (I sometimes suspect cats believe they are God, but that’s another story entirely.[2]) Likewise potatoes and small rocks are also atheists, because they, too, d ...[text shortened]... and the potato.
http://www.rzim.eu/the-scandanavian-sceptic-or-why-atheism-is-a-belief-system
This argument is delightfully debunked in it.
However, given that you are evidently the moron described in the video...
An atheist is a PERSON who lacks a belief in the existence of gods.
They can believe [or not believe] ANYTHING else. And can do so for ANY reason.
They are not required to believe that the world/universe/reality exists.
They are not required to be a materialist. [of any definition]
They are not even required to be non-religious.
The one and only solitary single requirement for a person to be an atheist is that
they do not presently have a positive belief that a god or gods actually exist.
That is neither a belief, nor a belief system.
4 edits
Originally posted by googlefudgeThat will be shining bright you potato! You profess the same intellectual stance as a potato, bwahahahah! Oh what joy! 😀😀😀
You haven't watched the video.
This argument is delightfully debunked in it.
However, given that you are evidently the moron described in the video...
An atheist is a PERSON who lacks a belief in the existence of gods.
They can believe [or not believe] ANYTHING else. And can do so for ANY reason.
They are not required to believe that the w ...[text shortened]... tive belief that a god or gods actually exist.
That is neither a belief, nor a belief system.
Neither True, Nor False, But Meaningless
A further drastic problem arises if the atheist wishes to claim that his statement “there is no God” is not a claim or a belief—if it isn’t, then it cannot be true or false. The problem is that only claims can be true or false. It makes perfect sense to ask whether a claim like “It is raining today” or “The Maple Leafs lost again” is true or false.[4] On the other hand, it is meaningless to ask whether the colour blue, a small off-duty Czechoslovakian traffic warden, or the word ‘Wibble’ are true—they are not claims and thus cannot possess a truth value.
So here’s the problem for the atheist. If atheism is not a claim of any kind, then it is simply meaningless. On the other hand, if the atheist wishes to claim that his atheism is true, then that must mean that atheism is a claim, and claims need to be defended, evidence provided and reasons given. If atheists wish to join in the conversation and the debate—and I believe that they deserve their seat at the table of ideas as much as any other worldview—then they must recognise their belief for what it is and start behaving accordingly.
http://www.rzim.eu/the-scandanavian-sceptic-or-why-atheism-is-a-belief-system
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWatch the video Robbie, all your points are addressed therein.
Neither True, Nor False, But Meaningless
A further drastic problem arises if the atheist wishes to claim that his statement “there is no God” is not a claim or a belief—if it isn’t, then it cannot be true or false. The problem is that only claims can be true or false. It makes perfect sense to ask whether a claim like “It is raining today” or “The ...[text shortened]... ng accordingly.
http://www.rzim.eu/the-scandanavian-sceptic-or-why-atheism-is-a-belief-system