22 Mar 10
Originally posted by 667joeMoronic. In fact it may be the dumbest quote I ever read.
I contend 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. - Stephen Henry Roberts
23 Mar 10
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI argue "not believing in a given god" is to a definition of "atheism" what "its a number" is to a definition of "pi". I think it is, at the very least, a slightly stronger statement suggesting disbelief in any of a collection of given gods (a blurry line exists between agnostic and atheist). and so negating "one is an atheist" would be "one is not an atheist", to which I'd argue
Why is it a problem? I think that in the context it clearly means "not believing in a given god".
one does not disbelieve in all gods from a given collection.
This would suggest belief in at least one god (which seems to encapsulate the notion of being religious).
24 Mar 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadI contend we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do.
Why? It seems perfectly sensible to me. What am I missing?
How can he contend that "we both" are atheist, and then say he believes in one fewer god than the other?
If the one believes in a god, then that one isn't an atheist. So therefore, how can they both be atheists?
24 Mar 10
Originally posted by AgergAnd I think it is quite clear from the quote that his meaning in the context is "we both do not believe in many gods, I just do not believe in on more than you". I think his point is a good one, and that the use of the word 'atheist' works very well.
I argue "not believing in a given god" is to a definition of "atheism" what "its a number" is to a definition of "pi". I think it is, at the very least, a slightly stronger statement suggesting disbelief in any of a [b]collection of given gods (a blurry line exists between agnostic and atheist). and so negating "one is an atheist" would be "one is not an a ...[text shortened]... ief in at least one god (which seems to encapsulate the notion of being religious).[/b]
24 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadHis point is indeed a good one, but I don't think it is clear that in any context "atheist" means disbelief in one god or even 'many'.
And I think it is quite clear from the quote that his meaning in the context is "we both do not believe in many gods, I just do not believe in on more than you". I think his point is a good one, and that the use of the word 'atheist' works very well.
Indeed if we hold that to be true then it completely trivialises the notion of atheism because it is always true that for any number of gods you suggest, Such a collection can be cooked up so that a person doesn't believe in them.
24 Mar 10
Originally posted by AgergI do not see how it 'completely trivialises the notion of atheism'. If anything, it highlights the reasons why some of us are atheist. That was his point.
His point is indeed a good one, but I don't think it is clear that in any context "atheist" means disbelief in one god or even 'many'.
Indeed if we hold that to be true then it completely trivialises the notion of atheism because it is always true that for [b]any number of gods you suggest, Such a collection can be cooked up so that a person doesn't believe in them.[/b]
24 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadWhat he says highlights the reason why we are atheists of course, I'm not challenging that.
I do not see how it 'completely trivialises the notion of atheism'. If anything, it highlights the reasons why some of us are atheist. That was his point.
But to use your definition of "atheism" is throwing away the very thing that encapsulates the position we (I presume) all share; that is...disbelief in any gods that are so far known to us; not just a sub-collection of them.