Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
Excerpt from Encyclopedia Britannica;
hatred for being an atheist
- Thread starter Hepheastus420
- Start date
Prawn Connery
Well-Known Member
I'm sure you would need to provide the correct definition of the misconcept of epistemology in the first place to apply it rightfully, wouldn't you? If indeed you could prove your defintion is any more valid than anyone else's.
How is my theory on the innate concept of God or relative omniscience any less provable than your cut-and-paste views below? What original thinking have you brought to the debate?
There are more than two positions. Your definition of "atheism", for example, sounds a lot like agnosticism. Perhaps you don't know the difference?Heisenberg said:
Perhaps, due to your conditioned state and sense of false superiority, there are no provisions for views outside your own based on the established norm. But why limit your argument to what others have simply said before you? Why not branch out?
Let's dispense with childish notions about Lock Ness monsters and "simplistic views of the world". I think such arguments are below people who clearly left immature analogies about supersticion and belief behind long ago. Let's focus on your adherence to the "musings" (good word, that) of your quotable friends below:
There are basically two premises here - two different concepts.Heisenberg said:
Firstly, that children "have no idea of God". That statement is very easy to contextualise in reference to the religious views of the late 18th century and the explicit notion that "God" is the god of Christianity or some other mainstream religion.
Is that what Holbach was referring to? And if so, does that not limit his theory to mainstream views and concepts while ignoring the very idea of an innate belief in "the almighty" or an omnipotent being that has absolutely nothing to do with religious doctrine at all?
Have you even thought about that?
Secondly, Bradlaugh's (this time 19th Century) assertion that: "I do not deny God, because I cannot deny that of which I have no conception, and the conception of which by its affirmer is so imperfect that he is unable to define it for me."
This is very close to what I have been saying. And it's interesting, because it was coined only a few years after the term "agnosticism" was first introduced by Huxley to the wider world to define his own philosophy - which is quite different to that of the theist or even athiest (though obviously some people - such as yourself - can't tell the difference).
Seen in that context, is Bradlaugh still talking about "athiesm"? Is he refering to a "lack of belief" or, in fact, doubts over the afirmation of such beliefs? And again, is his statement not in the context of some form of mainstream religion? That "Standard God", if you will?
If making allowances - as you have above - for only two sides of a debate is not "limited" - as you seem to be referring to my own position - then I'm not quite sure what is!
Can words not be redefined? I'm a "gay" chap - how about you?Heisenberg said:
Honestly, please try to give us a flash of something a little more exclusive . . .
Prawn Connery
Well-Known Member
Both are active beliefs. A lack of belief is a cognitive action in the same way that apathy is a cognitive action. Both are consious (possibly even sub-concious) decisions. But both require actions.
Prawn Connery
Well-Known Member
Is that athiesm? Are you sure?
I'm not talking about language at all. You simply don't get it. That's OK. You're right. Pointless.Beefbisqui said:
Same as your take on "I think therefore I am". Sorry, but do you even know what that is supposed to represent?
And yes, "Encyclopaedia Britannica". Very good . . .
. . . except there is no such thing as a "nonanthropomorphic God". If humans define it, by its very definition it is anthropomorphic.
Zaehet Strife
Well-Known Member
I agree. We are in a philosophy forum. When trying to define a word, we must use the correct definition of that word in order to communicate with others exactly what we are trying to say.
The word atheist, is by definition, a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of god or gods.
Again, this does not mean the atheist holds onto the belief that god or gods certainly do not exist, it is merely a statement of "Nah, not enough evidence for me as an individual to prove to myself that god or gods do not exist, not enough evidence to prove that they do either, so ill stick with my previous notion, that i do not believe in something that has not been proven to me."
The correct word you are searching for Prawn would be a "strong atheist". If you want to use the word, to describe an atheist who believes with certainty that there is no god.
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
I did not claim to bring original thought, but remedial corrections. Your statement was:
Demonstrating your misunderstanding was all I intended to do.
Agnosticism is about knowledge, I was speaking of belief. There are only two positions possible, belief or non-belief. If you are not with belief, then you are without, just as if you are not with money you are without.
Aside from the subtle ad hominem, I have no need to branch out. If we can't use the accepted definition of words, or agree on new usage, further musings are pointless.
There was no argument. It was an example meant to demonstrate my point. You've apparently contorted it into a "childish argument" in your mind in order to justify pushing it away.
It's clear what was being said. Atheism is about belief, agnosticism is about knowledge. That is why a person can be atheist and agnostic, theist and gnostic, or anywhere along the spectrum. Simply knowing someone is agnostic tells you nothing about what they belief. A person can say they have no knowledge of God what-so-ever, yet they believe on faith or feeling. Likewise, knowing someone is gnostic tells you nothing about what they believe. I am with knowledge, but does that knowledge prove to me God's existence or his non-existence? In order to tell, you need to also know if I am theist or atheist.
I do not demand anyone choose or accept any label, I am simply providing the correct description of terms. We are not talking about a debate, we are talking about your statement:
There seems to be no debate here, your quote is pretty definite, and demonstrably wrong.
Belittlement and mental masturbation to the point of Gish galloping seem to be your only tools.
Prawn Connery
Well-Known Member
Honestly. I was wondering when the epithets would begin. And you don't see the hypocrisy at all, do you? "Mental masturbation to the point of Gish galloping" - very alliterative! But hardly an observation.
I'll dispense with the lazy cut-and-paste dissection argument that you all seem to employ by simply suggesting that you are not "with knowledge" until you understand that knowledge itself is in a state of flux - and inherently hinges on the theory (and general acceptance) of the time. Which, as human history attests, is ephemeral.
All theories stand to be disproved. All knowledge is a product of our current state. There is no such thing as "true" knowledge, because there is no such thing as "true" anything: everything is a perception.
The same applies to language. Which is why it evolves and will continue to evolve no matter how you may cling to it.
If athiesm is about belief, and agnosticism about knowledge, then where does the "belief" in your "knowledge" fit in? You write as if belief and knowledge are seperable.
Are they?
Accepting you don't have the knowledge to base a particular belief on anything requires a belief in and of itself.
I certainly expect you to recant this with a bit of . . Kant. But that's all I can expect, as you have stated that your "belief" in your "knowledge" is not only irrefutable, but should form the basis of all underdstanding. You have made no provision for the aspects of existance that fall outside that "spectra" of human knowledge, and do not seem to be prepared to acknowledge we are fallible by our very make-up!
By dismissing the existance of god through whatever means - active non-belief, the (spurrious) denial of belief, or simple contortions of what you claim to be accepted defintions of the word itself - you are dismissing everything you don't know, and failing to open yourself to ideas that may fly in the face of your learned (outdated - much of what we do learn soon becomes outdated) behaviour.
I will stand by my statement:
Your arguments are uncannily similar (think about it). You both put your belief in something - even lack of belief. You really need to understand the concept that "belief" is at the core of human existance: if you "believe" this reality, if you "believe" in your existance, if you "believe" in the knowledge of your fellow man, then everything you think or do is based either on belief, or on innate (genetic) reflex.
Furthermore, I believe (there's that word again) that part of the human condition is having an innate belief in an omnipotent force - whatever form that takes at whatever stage in life you are at.
You believe you are superior to me. I believe I am superior to you. There is a heirarchy of omnipotence in the human condition limited only by a lack of omnipotence itself!
I mean, who made you God?
Prawn Connery
Well-Known Member
Can I ask: Are you "The Glacier" because you are cold? Or because you move slowly?
Beefbisquit
Well-Known Member
Lol - yes, I've studied Descartes rather extensively, thanks!
Yes, facts are good. Established definitions are good, too. They allow rational people to continue on their discourse.
An anthropomorphic god would mean giving human like qualities to god, maybe instead of sneering and telling people they don't know about philosophy (when they have a degree in Phil. no less, LOL) and you should start reading about pantheism and Spinoza. Thanks!
tyler.durden
Well-Known Member
We gave him that title because an RIU member so aptly put it, "Arguing with Heisenberg is like boxing a glacier!" Just a little inside joke...
Prawn Connery
Well-Known Member
Ah. "Mental masturbation" . . . "circle jerk" . . . I get it now.
Hepheastus420
Well-Known Member
Here ya go connery.. pulled from google since none of the other explanations are getting to you.
atheist.. "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods"
Not sure exactly what "disbelieves" means? well here you go again.. "be unable to believe (someone or something)."
read the definition of atheist 10 times.. 50 times.. 100 times, until you get it into your head. It should make sense by the 100th time.
athiests and theists are one in the same: one is certain that god (or gods) exist; the other is certain they do not.
- connery
how does this fit the atheist definition? Maybe I shouldn't get into this since others have already tried and failed, not because they're wrong.
atheist.. "a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods"
Not sure exactly what "disbelieves" means? well here you go again.. "be unable to believe (someone or something)."
read the definition of atheist 10 times.. 50 times.. 100 times, until you get it into your head. It should make sense by the 100th time.
athiests and theists are one in the same: one is certain that god (or gods) exist; the other is certain they do not.
- connery
how does this fit the atheist definition? Maybe I shouldn't get into this since others have already tried and failed, not because they're wrong.
Hepheastus420
Well-Known Member
atheism is a lack of belief. Saying "I believe god doesn't exist" is a belief.
definition of belief.. "an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists." "trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something."
in order to say god doesn't exist, you'd have to have faith, trust, and confidence that he doesn't exist since there's no evidence to back that claim. This fits the definition of a belief.
saying god doesn't exist is a belief.. atheism is a lack of belief. what's not to get? very simple.
definition of belief.. "an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists." "trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something."
in order to say god doesn't exist, you'd have to have faith, trust, and confidence that he doesn't exist since there's no evidence to back that claim. This fits the definition of a belief.
saying god doesn't exist is a belief.. atheism is a lack of belief. what's not to get? very simple.
eye exaggerate
Well-Known Member
Zaehet Strife
Well-Known Member
Easier to believe what one can perceive with the senses rather than mere thought, wishful thinking and hope.
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
Ah. "Mental masturbation" . . . "circle jerk" . . . I get it now.
Ah but what is a "circle"? Is not the whole world a circle? Do people not jerk all around it? In your eagerness to belittle you seem to forget that we are all on the wheel, and those you jerk today may end up jerking you tomorrow.
“Society is intrinsically a legal fiction,” says Baudrillard; however, according to Long, it is not so much society that is intrinsically a legal fiction, but rather the genre, and some would say the defining characteristic, of society. The example of nihilism prevalent in Gibson’s Idoru emerges again in Neuromancer. But an abundance of discourses concerning the role of the writer as participant exist.
“Narrativity is part of the meaninglessness of truth,” says Lacan. Precultural Marxism suggests that society, somewhat surprisingly, has significance. However, any number of deconstructions concerning submodern discourse may be found.
The main theme of the works of Gibson is not deappropriation as such, but predeappropriation. In Count Zero, Gibson affirms precultural Marxism; in All Tomorrow’s Parties he reiterates structuralist discourse. In a sense, Lyotard promotes the use of precultural Marxism to deconstruct colonialist perceptions of sexual identity.
“Class is unattainable,” says Sontag. Lyotard’s essay on neodialectic modernist theory implies that the task of the poet is social comment. It could be said that Derrida suggests the use of precultural Marxism to read and analyse sexual identity.
Nihilism holds that language serves to marginalize the proletariat. Thus, Sartre uses the term ‘semiotic situationism’ to denote a mythopoetical totality.
Marx’s analysis of nihilism states that reality is capable of deconstruction, given that truth is distinct from language. But the ground/figure distinction which is a central theme of Gibson’s Mona Lisa Overdrive is also evident in All Tomorrow’s Parties, although in a more subdialectic sense.
http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
I tired to discuss this with my FB page, which is about science/skepticism, and you would have thought I suggested killing babies. Although I feel the vast majority of what is labeled as scientism is not, I feel we can admit scientism is possible without weakening any scientific position. What I found is that many people who identify as skeptics refuse to acknowledge the term. The way I see it, if someone calls me a cynic, I define what a cynic really is and describe how a skeptic is different. I take the same approach with scientism. We cannot refute the accusation unless we define what scientism is, but the conversation stalled at trying to define it because people are apparently threatened by the term. Meanwhile, the next day I posted about the extinction of the black rhino which was largely due to the poaching of horns for alt-med purposes, and many people expressed that studies prove conservation efforts do not work, so basically it's a waste of time to care. Although this is an isolated and small instance, it seems pretty close to scientism to me.
But mostly what I see as being labeled scientism is actually objectivism.
Why is this thread reminding me of H.G. Wells 'The Island of Dr. Moreau'? Perhaps it is all the "Big Thinks" and references to same. While they are surely a form of amusement to pass the time (and collect money in the case of professional Big Thinkers), it's just whistling past the graveyard to me.
