1. Maryland
    Joined
    10 Jun '05
    Moves
    110614
    21 Mar '10 22:53
    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
  2. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    21 Mar '10 23:16
    Originally posted by 667joe
    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
    heard it before!
  3. Joined
    30 May '09
    Moves
    28126
    21 Mar '10 23:38
    Originally posted by robbie carrobie
    heard it before!
    I bet you had a brilliant riposte back then too...🙂
  4. Account suspended
    Joined
    26 Aug '07
    Moves
    38239
    22 Mar '10 00:161 edit
    Originally posted by Lord Shark
    I bet you had a brilliant riposte back then too...🙂
    heard this as well. . . . .is there nothing new under the sun?
  5. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    22 Mar '10 04:40
    Originally posted by 667joe
    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
    Moronic. In fact it may be the dumbest quote I ever read.
  6. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    22 Mar '10 07:32
    Originally posted by josephw
    Moronic. In fact it may be the dumbest quote I ever read.
    Why? It seems perfectly sensible to me. What am I missing?
  7. Joined
    30 May '09
    Moves
    28126
    22 Mar '10 09:59
    . . . .is there nothing new under the sun?
    Never heard that one before..🙂
  8. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    22 Mar '10 10:031 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Why? It seems perfectly sensible to me. What am I missing?
    The underlying message is fine...the word "atheists" is a problem.
  9. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    22 Mar '10 14:08
    Originally posted by Agerg
    The underlying message is fine...the word "atheists" is a problem.
    Why is it a problem? I think that in the context it clearly means "not believing in a given god".
  10. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    23 Mar '10 12:322 edits
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Why is it a problem? I think that in the context it clearly means "not believing in a given god".
    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 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

    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).
  11. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    24 Mar '10 03:01
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Why? It seems perfectly sensible to me. What am I missing?
    I contend we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do.

    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?
  12. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    24 Mar '10 05:04
    Originally posted by Agerg
    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]
    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.
  13. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    24 Mar '10 09:001 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    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.
    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 any number of gods you suggest, Such a collection can be cooked up so that a person doesn't believe in them.
  14. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    24 Mar '10 10:06
    Originally posted by Agerg
    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]
    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.
  15. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    24 Mar '10 10:301 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    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.
    What he says highlights the reason why we are atheists of course, I'm not challenging that.
    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.
Back to Top