Atheism

Originally posted by lausey
I have been in a car crash where I thought I was about to die. I never had any divine feelings at any point.

Not close enough, apparently. You'll get there eventually, however.

Originally posted by Agerg
“…Atheists might assert that they don’t acknowledge the existence of God,…”

What? They might say they don’t “acknowledge” the existence of God?
I know I wouldn’t because that makes no sense.
Would you say you don’t “acknowledge” the existence of the tooth fairy?
If they say or think they don’t “acknowledge” the existence of God then they are theists a t valid. Thus if I don't acknowledge the existence of God then I simply don't believe in God.

Most common used meaning of “acknowledge”:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/acknowledge


a, To ADMIT the existence, reality, or TRUTH of. (my emphases)

So, on the bases of the above meaning, to say that atheists do not “acknowledge” that there is a God clearly implies that there IS a God. What if there isn’t a God? –then to say something like; “atheists do not acknowledge that there is a God” is an invalid assertion. And because atheists don’t believe there is a God, it logically follows that the assertion “atheists do not acknowledge that there is a God” is invalid in the minds of all atheists and no atheist would agree with such an assertion.

What reason it there to insist on the word “acknowledge”?
It would only make sense to atheists to assert, very simply, “atheists don’t believe there is a God”, that is all! And certainly not “atheists do not acknowledge that there is a God” because none of them would agree that this is their position!

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Most common used meaning of “acknowledge”:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/acknowledge


a, To ADMIT the existence, reality, or TRUTH of. (my emphases)

So, on the bases of the above meaning, to say that atheists do not “acknowledge” that there is a God clearly implies that there IS a God. What if there isn’t a God? –then to say ...[text shortened]... t acknowledge that there is a God” because none of them would agree that this is their position!

Well it's a trivial point but I disagree with you. I'm happy to use the definition you provided.
You said:
...a, To ADMIT the existence, reality, or TRUTH of. (my emphases)

So, on the bases of the above meaning, to say that atheists do not “acknowledge” that there is a God clearly implies that there IS a God...

I can recast this using the definition you provided as:
So, on the bases of the above meaning, to say that atheists do not admit as truth the statement there is a God clearly implies that there IS a God.

and this is false! :]

Probably there is some atheism in fox holes too. I know a Christian who was an atheist during the Viet Nam war. According to him he was an atheist all the time he saw action in the Viet Nam war. And even at one point when a Christian died in battle he challenged another Christian saying to the effect - "See, he believed in God and got killed. I'm an atheist and I'm still here. What's up with this ?" His taunt was about the old saying that "There are no atheists in fox holes."

The man is now a believer in Christ. He claims that he was an argumentative and even taunting atheist throughout his time in Viet Nam.

I don't know how he eventually latter became a believer in Jesus. But I am sure someone was praying for him.

Originally posted by Agerg
Well it's a trivial point but I disagree with you. I'm happy to use the definition you provided.
You said:
[b]...a, To ADMIT the existence, reality, or TRUTH of. (my emphases)

So, on the bases of the above meaning, to say that atheists do not “acknowledge” that there is a God clearly implies that there IS a God...

I can recast this using the defin ...[text shortened]... atement[/b] there is a God clearly implies that there IS a God. [/i]

and this is false! :][/b]

Not quite I think. I think if you look at that definition “To ADMIT the existence, reality, or TRUTH of” then the word “acknowledge” in:

1, “to say that atheists do not “acknowledge” that there is a God clearly implies that there IS a God”

Should be substituted with, simply, “admit the truth” to give:

2, “to say that atheists do not “admit the truth” that there is a God clearly implies that there IS a God”

And I would assert the above statement 2, is “true” and NOT “false”.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Not quite I think. I think if you look at that definition “To ADMIT the existence, reality, or TRUTH of” then the word “acknowledge” in:

1, “to say that atheists do not “acknowledge” that there is a God clearly implies that there IS a God”

Should be substituted with, simply, “admit the truth” to give:

2, “to say that atheists do not “admit ...[text shortened]... ies that there IS a God”

And I would assert the above statement 2, is “true” and NOT “false”.

For my reply, I'd like to quote the part of Otto, in "A Fish Called Wanda," played by Kevin Kline, when he said:

"What was the part in the middle?"

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Not quite I think. I think if you look at that definition “To ADMIT the existence, reality, or TRUTH of” then the word “acknowledge” in:

1, “to say that atheists do not “acknowledge” that there is a God clearly implies that there IS a God”

Should be substituted with, simply, “admit the truth” to give:

2, “to say that atheists do not “admit ...[text shortened]... ies that there IS a God”

And I would assert the above statement 2, is “true” and NOT “false”.

Oh I'm not giving this one up without a fight!

You missed the all important word "of" in "truth of" and it's an important word since with it's inclusion we expect "truth" refers to some specific thing(s) (as is consistent with the definition) whilst without it, "truth" references nothing. If we now include the "of" here we have:

“to say that atheists do not “admit the truth of” that there is a God clearly implies that there IS a God”

This does not make sense, we must now ask of what??? and I say that "there is a God" is clearly a statement (and it is either true or not true), so the "what" here is simply the statement itself. So when we substitute again:

“to say that atheists do not “admit the truth of the statement” that there is a God clearly implies that there IS a God”

we have something that makes grammatical sense and it happens to be false (it implies there is a statement!) :]

Originally posted by Agerg
Oh I'm not giving this one up without a fight!

You missed the all important word "of" in "truth of" and it's an important word since with it's inclusion we expect "truth" refers to some specific [b]thing(s) (as is consistent with the definition) whilst without it, "truth" references nothing. If we now include the "of" here we have:

“to say that athei ...[text shortened]... mmatical sense and it happens to be false (it implies there is a statement!) :][/b]

I see the definition of “acknowledge” on that website is:

...a, To ADMIT the existence, reality, or TRUTH of. (my emphases)[/b]

I can see this is unfortunately an imperfect definition (but it is extremely hard to make a definition perfect! -so it isn’t their fault ) partly because I think the word “of” should be “that” in certain statements (example: if I say “I acknowledge I was wrong” then that doesn’t quite say “I admit the truth of I was wrong” but “I admit the truth that I was wrong&rdquo😉 but also because if you simply replace the word “acknowledge” with “admit the truth of” in a statement that has the word “acknowledge” then the resulting statement sometimes but not always make perfect grammatical sense because the word “of” can become redundant by the words that follow it. For example, if you replace “acknowledge” with “admit the truth of” in:

“to say that atheists do not acknowledge that there is a God clearly implies that there IS a God”

We get:

“to say that atheists do not admit the truth of that there is a God clearly implies that there IS a God”

Which I am not sure if we can say this makes perfect grammatical sense because the words “that there” in “of that there” renders the word “of” redundant just like the word “better” in “more better” renders the word “more” redundant. So I believe we can in this case simply drop the redundant “of” to give:

“to say that atheists do not admit the truth that there is a God clearly implies that there IS a God”

Which I think makes sense.

But you say you think it should be:

“to say that atheists do not admit the truth of the statement that there is a God clearly implies that there IS a God”

So you substitute “acknowledge” with “admit the truth of the statement” but I don’t see the words “the statement” in that definition of “acknowledge”. And, I don’t think those words where implied in that definition because they seem to me to always be redundant because if we have the statement “I acknowledge I was wrong” I can be restate this as “I admit the truth that I was wrong” (remember I said the “of” can sometimes be replace with “that&rdquo😉 which make grammatical sense but the “the statement of” in “I admit the truth of the statement that I was wrong” (note we still need the word “that” here even though we use “of”! ) I think is redundant.

P.S. I do enjoy these analytical puzzles of meaning and grammar 🙂

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
I see the definition of “acknowledge” on that website is:

[b]...a, To ADMIT the existence, reality, or TRUTH of. (my emphases)[/b]

I can see this is unfortunately an imperfect definition (but it is extremely hard to make a definition perfect! -so it isn’t their fault ) partly because I think the word “of” should be “that” in certain state ...[text shortened]... ”! ) I think is redundant.

P.S. I do enjoy these analytical puzzles of meaning and grammar 🙂[/b]

Ok, point taken (in part) but lets fall back to the original point of contention:
No atheist should ever say "they don't acknowledge the existence of God"

I'll stick with the given definition (other dictionaries concur) bearing in mind that the verb "acknowledge" should be followed by some object in this definition:
To ADMIT the existence, reality, or TRUTH of

Consider:
1) they don't admit the existence of the existence of God
2) they don't admit the reality of the existence of God
3) they don't admit the truth of the existence of God

We can strike out (1) immediately (though it would make sense if we started with "...acknowledge God" where we could drop the redundant "existence" ) of (2) and (3), both of them refer to the 'object' "existence" whilst (3) also refers to "existence of God" (the entire statement is the object...(2) does not in this case (as far as is logically valid that is) because the reality of the statement given one has something to say about it isn't questionable). In no case I argue, is "God" the object "truth" or "truth of" refers to.

Where it gets tricky though is we can then approximate "they don't acknowledge the existence of God" with "they don't acknowledge that there is a God". Superficially they convey the same message but now when we make the following substitution: "they don't admit the truth that God exists" we see that we have an entirely different statement. I argue that implicit in "...that God exists" is that "God exists" is a statement (object) to which "truth" should reference, whilst "that" serves to glue the sentence together in a grammatical sense; it can be dropped or replaced.

Originally posted by Agerg
Ok, point taken (in part) but lets fall back to the original point of contention:
No atheist should ever say "they don't acknowledge the existence of God"

I'll stick with the given definition (other dictionaries concur) bearing in mind that the verb "acknowledge" should be followed by some object in this definition:
To ADMIT the existence, real n a grammatical sense; it can be dropped or replaced.

Regardless of the “correct” interpretation of what "they don't acknowledge the existence of God" means, I would guess most people that read that statement would, without looking up the formal definition of the word “acknowledge” for detailed analysis, immediately but implicitly assume it to mean approximately; “they don't admit the fact that there IS a God” (note that that wouldn't come from any formal definition)

So I would still say atheist should never say "they don't acknowledge the existence of God" because if an atheist said that, it would probably cause confusion and misunderstanding by others who would interpret that he is explicitly saying he “KNOWS” God exists but refuses to admit this “fact”! AND while still claiming to be an atheist! –that’s two logically incoherent things for an atheist to be apparently saying! it just wouldn't seem to make sense.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Regardless of the “correct” interpretation of what "they don't acknowledge the existence of God" means, I would guess most people that read that statement would, without looking up the formal definition of the word “acknowledge” for detailed analysis, immediately but implicitly assume it to mean approximately; “they don't admit the fact that there I ...[text shortened]... ent things for an atheist to be apparently saying! it just wouldn't seem to make sense.

I would say "deny the existence of God" implies that a God exists rather than "don't acknowledge the existence of God".

Acknowledge is a bit more ambiguous.

Strangely many creationists insist that atheists really believe deep down that God exists but deny it. As if it isn't possible to not believe in God.

Originally posted by lausey
I would say "deny the existence of God" implies that a God exists rather than "don't acknowledge the existence of God".

Acknowledge is a bit more ambiguous.

Strangely many creationists insist that atheists really believe deep down that God exists but deny it. As if it isn't possible to not believe in God.

You hit the nail on the head. It is not possible to not believe in God. You may reject Him, but you cannot not believe in something you know to exist. That's like saying, "I don't believe in me." Hate yourself, maybe. Despise your every action, possible. But disbelieve in yourself? Poppycock.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You hit the nail on the head. It is not possible to not believe in God. You may reject Him, but you cannot not believe in something you know to exist. That's like saying, "I don't believe in me." Hate yourself, maybe. Despise your every action, possible. But disbelieve in yourself? Poppycock.

What's the difference between saying
"it's not possible to not believe in God"
and
"it's not possible to not believe in the tooth fairy"

other than the fact one is claimed to be some supernatural creator of the universe, whilst the other is some supernatural reward-giver to those who offer teeth??? 😕

I find it very easy to not believe in God, moreover I do not know it exists!

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
Regardless of the “correct” interpretation of what "they don't acknowledge the existence of God" means, I would guess most people that read that statement would, without looking up the formal definition of the word “acknowledge” for detailed analysis, immediately but implicitly assume it to mean approximately; “they don't admit the fact that there I ent things for an atheist to be apparently saying! it just wouldn't seem to make sense.

I can agree with you perhaps (though I never really had the confusion you describe when I first heard the phrase, and don't recall any challenges to my usage of it in the past). The thing is though, one can say the same thing about the word "atheist"...I'll wager that the greater majority of folk that don't necessarily discuss the subject at length on forums or anywhere else take that word to mean one affirms the non-existence of God (hard-atheism, for which there is some burden of proof) as opposed to one who fails to have any inclination towards believing in it/them. Infact it has been a source of confusion on these boards a number of times.

I say that the problem lies more with those who fail to parse the phrase correctly given the context and the person making it :]

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
But disbelieve in yourself? Poppycock.

From what I gather from Buddhist ramblings, that is not actually unheard of.
The real poppycock though is your belief that I necessarily believe in the existence of the entity you call God.