You could be an atheist and not believe in material existence at all.Not quite sure I understand this, if I don't consider supernaturality, or metaphysics, yet could not beleive in material existence( may I'm insane but I dont' see how that in itself is even possible?), what would I be, because the only thing that isn't reality, is unreality, which is metaphysical which I discount as beleif. I'm just trying to understand what your saying because it's giving me a logic feedback headache, through my own misunderstanding I'm sure.
Okay, I'm sure this won't go down well, but I'm going to posit that the dictionary your quoting is in fact incorrect, that is the dictionary definition, but it is a misrepresentation, following from the theist assertion that athiesm is a religion thus invalidating it as a form of thought.
Using the dictionary defintion of athiesm, sure athiesm could be argued to be a beleif system, as good in fact any political or social ideology.
So, yes, I'm clearly trying to redefine athiesm, but just the definition in the dictionary. The current one implies that athiests beleive there is an absence of god, as if there is a hole in the metaphysics of the universe which is empty. This is not true of athiests. There is no hole, there is no god that could fill that hole, nor was there ever, the universe is a measurable expanse of mass and energy. By claiming that I cannot disprove the existence of the magical, you are a) effectively saying that everything that you cannot disprove exists, therefore all beleifs and spiritualisms exist, and b) implying that I think about the question, and actively embrace the absence of magical forces, which is not true.
Science, and natural philosophy is a great basis for my argument in fact, I'm not going to say its not, because the everything is natural, and science is just the attempt to understand that.
The major contention here is that religion and athiesm are fundametally opposed as concepts. If religion is...
Well, I'm not claiming that being an idealist, or even trying to understand being one, won't give you a headache, but there are idealists who are atheists. I suggest we leave the category of religion aside, for the moment, as a very difficult matter in its own right. The reason I am resisting your attempt to redefine atheism is because it seems to be mirroring version of the argument that atheism is just another religion: "you won't drag us down to religion, we will elevate ourselves above you as science." (Personal pronouns are merely representative here.) Atheism, like theism, is a broad characteristic of many different schools, systems, and individual instantiations of belief. Some belief systems are characterized by belief in the divine, some by non-belief in the divine. In particular what I would like to see happen with atheism, is for people to articulate what those atheisms (pl.) are, so that we can see how the belief in non-divinity works in different systems, as opposed to being a mere objection to "religion".
As far as the argument you are are concerned about above goes, none of that is what I am about or have any interest in, with the possible exception of whether there is a "metaphysical hole" at the center of the universe--a striking image, though of course I would only use it as an image and not intend it literally. For one accessible take on this, interested folks might take a look at the work of John Polkinghorne.
One may in fact believe "everything is natural," and still need to come to grips with metaphysical issues, which I think would include the problem I pose above about the relationship between faith and proof.
You could be an atheist and not believe in material existence at all.Not quite sure I understand this, if I don't consider supernaturality, or metaphysics, yet could not beleive in material existence( may I'm insane but I dont' see how that in itself is even possible?), what would I be, because the only thing that isn't reality, is unreality, which is metaphysical which I discount as beleif. I'm just trying to understand what your saying because it's giving me a logic feedback headache, through my own misunderstanding I'm sure.
Okay, I'm sure this won't go down well, but I'm going to posit that the dictionary your quoting is in fact incorrect, that is the dictionary definition, but it is a misrepresentation, following from the theist assertion that athiesm is a religion thus invalidating it as a form of thought.
Using the dictionary defintion of athiesm, sure athiesm could be argued to be a beleif system, as good in fact any political or social ideology.
So, yes, I'm clearly trying to redefine athiesm, but just the definition in the dictionary. The current one implies that athiests beleive there is an absence of god, as if there is a hole in the metaphysics of the universe which is empty. This is not true of athiests. There is no hole, there is no god that could fill that hole, nor was there ever, the universe is a measurable expanse of mass and energy. By claiming that I cannot disprove the existence of the magical, you are a) effectively saying that everything that you cannot disprove exists, therefore all beleifs and spiritualisms exist, and b) implying that I think about the question, and actively embrace the absence of magical forces, which is not true.
Science, and natural philosophy is a great basis for my argument in fact, I'm not going to say its not, because the everything is natural, and science is just the attempt to understand that.
The major contention here is that religion and athiesm are fundametally opposed as concepts. If religion is...
Well, I'm not claiming that being an idealist, or even trying to understand being one, won't give you a headache, but there are idealists who are atheists. I suggest we leave the category of religion aside, for the moment, as a very difficult matter in its own right. The reason I am resisting your attempt to redefine atheism is because it seems to be a mirroring version of the argument that atheism is just another religion: "you won't drag us down to religion, we will elevate ourselves above you as science." (Personal pronouns are merely representative here.) Atheism, like theism, is a broad characteristic of many different schools, systems, and individual instantiations of belief. Some belief systems are characterized by belief in the divine, some by non-belief in the divine. In particular what I would like to see happen with atheism, is for people to articulate what those atheisms (pl.) are, so that we can see how the belief in non-divinity works in different systems, as opposed to being a mere objection to "religion".
As far as the argument you are are concerned about above goes, none of that is what I am about or have any interest in, with the possible exception of whether there is a "metaphysical hole" at the center of the universe--a striking image, though of course I would only use it as an image and not intend it literally. For one accessible take on this, interested folks might take a look at the work of John Polkinghorne.
One may in fact believe "everything is natural," and still need to come to grips with metaphysical issues, which I think would include the problem I pose above about the relationship between faith and proof.
It does go back to the old argument though that if you don't actually believe in something then why should you act moral in the first place.
Personal pride and conscience might have something to do with it. For some, a game-theory understanding that "not playing nicely," by the very nature of a communal society, causes a backlash against oneself when people inevitably find out. Any number of other possible reasons.
And one can use your argument in reverse as well: if you know Jesus died for your sins and will forgive you your trespasses if you repent, then why should you worry about sinning? Just sin all you want now and then wait until later and repent then. Obvously that's not the intent of Christianity; nor is it the intent of most atheists to use it as a loophole to do wrong.
The plain fact of the matter is that some people, Christians and atheirsts alike, act morally. Many others, Christian and atheist equally, do not. And almost all people act morally in some respects or in some situations, and immorally in others.
|
or just be patient ;-)You can delete the post after you post and it still lets you see the ghost posts, you realise? If you couldn't I'd have more ghost posts in this thread than actual ones.ghosting postingReplying to force ghost posts.
Bah. I'm a Liberal (as if you couldn't tell). If it doesn't feel good right now, it's worthless. ;-)
|
The founders knew that a new goverment would need to be put in place once they declared independence from the Crown. Their choices was to choose from one of the many tried models of governtment from around the world that had been devised by man. Try to come up with a government of thier own devise, or turn to Gods word in the Bible. God tells Samuel how he wants his people to govern themselves and the founding fathers followed the model set forth in the scripture. So the basis of conservatism is the original intent of the founders wich was institutions and traditions inspired by Gods teachings directly taken from the BibleLest anyone think that silence is acceptance, let me dissent vigorously. Quote Samuel as to the model that this scriptural government is supposed to follow, and then show me how the Constitution in any way resembles that model (except that it allows for a government). Otherwise, I've got a story about how the Framers actually based our government on a collection of Hindu proverbs, or based it on Santa's reindeer.
I don't have the resources here at work to show such. Later tonight I will submit my evidence for your viewing pleasure
You do that, and we'll go off topic on that thread too. We'll start talking about Abe Lincoln was really a vampire hunter and what his real motive behind the Empancipation Proclamation was. :P
<SNIP> ...the other side has little desire for "fairness" or "equality" (based on that history you enjoy invoking) and simply wishes to retain power by removing personal responsibility form anyone's life situation, and instead generates an unreasonable hatred of the successful in order to gain the political power to punish those who dare to try and achieve above and beyond what others are either capable or willing to achieve...<SNIP>
Which is, of course, a straw man. I fail to see what is to be gained by continuing discussion if you insist on painting all those who disagree with you as power-hungry, jealous fools. It would be no different if than me discounting the "other side" as greedy rapists bent on exploiting everything (and everyone) around them. Not constructive, nor conducive to understanding the other POV.
You know, this has really grown beyond the scope of this thread. Maybe a new thread is in order. Or maybe, since the big issue seems to be religion at this point, it could be better served by the Civil Religious Discussion thread?
The "what is atheism" stuff certainly belongs there, I agree. The "is America a Christian country" stuff should probably stay here, though.
I don't have the resources here at work to show such. Later tonight I will submit my evidence for your viewing pleasure
Thank you; I look forward to it. A lot of people have made the same claim you do, and failed totally to back it up in any way except by saying things like "Well, we have a law against murder, and the Commandments do, to!" (By which logic almost all governments that predate Scripture are somehow based on Scripture, if you see what I mean). Your post makes it clear you've got something more substantive than that, which will be a pleasure to look at.
You do that, and we'll go off topic on that thread too. We'll start talking about Abe Lincoln was really a vampire hunter and what his real motive behind the Empancipation Proclamation was. :PHmmm, I sense a pbp idea in there.
It's by the same folks that did Pride & Prejudice and Zombies. I wish I could claim that as an original. I'll have to find the original article. The ad was schweet!
EDIT: But there is a movie out on DVD (that I own) entitled Jesus Christ, Vampire Hunter. :P
Bugley, I think you're taking Matthew's different examples and misunderstanding him to be placing them in a single syllogism.And I think you're missing that he's doing exactly that. :)
Edit: Will elaborate momentarily. :)
Ok, elaboration, as promised. Note this will likely be my final post in this thread, as things seem to have devolved into round-robin straw man assassinations.
He's using "belief" in two different senses. In one sense, it means "something I hold to be true." In another, it means religion, with all the associated trapping and dogma.
I can posit any number of things, but sans proof, they aren't worthy of further consideration. Atheists expect only that religions be held to the same standard. Of course, they aren't, because they don't hold up, and so we get attempts to obscure where the burden of proof rests...
You do that, and we'll go off topic on that thread too. We'll start talking about Abe Lincoln was really a vampire hunter and what his real motive behind the Empancipation Proclamation was. :PHmmm, I sense a pbp idea in there.
Here it is. link
My position (not that I claim to speak for all liberals) is that the output of our economy isn't distributed in accordance with responsibility for the creation of value. Further, history teaches that those who benefit from this disparity are loathe to correct it, hence the need for a progressive tax scheme. It has nothing to do with government ownership of anything, and everything to do with promoting equality of opportunity; ensuring that each is rewarded in accordance with one's own effort and ability, rather than in accordance with the size of your inheritance or one's willingness to take advantage of others.
Personally I'd defend a progressive tax structure as being in the self interest of the modern western democratic-capitalist system itself.
The problem with low taxes is that money pools - you usually can get more money if you already have it. This creates an ever greater dichotomy between the wealthy and the poor. Without institutions or structures that prop up a middle class (like labor unions for example) the middle class itself begins to vanish. The end result is increasing unrest among the have not's and if the situation persists for long enough they become ever more radical. Essentially a progressive tax system and the government programs that derive from such a system is the best defense against some kind of a strong and vibrant neo-Marxist movement.
In some sense Marx, in highlighting the contradictions inherent in capitalism and explaining how these contradictions would eventually cause capitalism to collapse, also explained what needed to be done in order to safeguard capitalism.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Bugley, I think you're taking Matthew's different examples and misunderstanding him to be placing them in a single syllogism.And I think you're missing that he's doing exactly that. :)
Edit: Will elaborate momentarily. :)
Ok, elaboration, as promised. Note this will likely be my final post in this thread, as things seem to have devolved into round-robin straw man assassinations.
He's using "belief" in two different senses. In one sense, it means "something I hold to be true." In another, it means religion, with all the associated trapping and dogma.
I can posit any number of things, but sans proof, they aren't worthy of further consideration. Atheists expect only that religions be held to the same standard. Of course, they aren't, because they don't hold up, and so we get attempts to obscure where the burden of proof rests...
Nope, I'm using belief as "Something I hold to be true". I know there is the Divine, in all his aspects. An Athiest believes there isn't. :P
Paul tagged it earlier
Aaaarrgghhh!!! Foiled by the Post Monster!
Here it is. linkYou do that, and we'll go off topic on that thread too. We'll start talking about Abe Lincoln was really a vampire hunter and what his real motive behind the Empancipation Proclamation was. :PHmmm, I sense a pbp idea in there.
Didn't ideas related to this show up in the new White Wolf Hunter game?
Nope, I'm using belief as "Something I hold to be true". I know there is the Divine, in all his aspects. An Athiest believes there isn't. :P
So, have you spoken to Art lately?
Didn't ideas related to this show up in the new White Wolf Hunter game?
Here it is. link
Dunno; not familiar with White Wolf products.
Bugley, I think you're taking Matthew's different examples and misunderstanding him to be placing them in a single syllogism.And I think you're missing that he's doing exactly that. :)
Edit: Will elaborate momentarily. :)
Ok, elaboration, as promised. Note this will likely be my final post in this thread, as things seem to have devolved into round-robin straw man assassinations.
He's using "belief" in two different senses. In one sense, it means "something I hold to be true." In another, it means religion, with all the associated trapping and dogma.
I can posit any number of things, but sans proof, they aren't worthy of further consideration. Atheists expect only that religions be held to the same standard. Of course, they aren't, because they don't hold up, and so we get attempts to obscure where the burden of proof rests...
Given the requests in this thread, I will also make this my final post here:
Sure, belief can mean holding a single proposition or holding an entire body of related beliefs. Either can be atheistic or theistic, and so the insistence that atheism is a belief, or characteristic of beliefs, holds, just as the opposite is true with theism.Beyond this issue of clarification, what I take as crucial is that you have missed, or missed the force of, my comments about proof above.
Nope, I'm using belief as "Something I hold to be true". I know there is the Divine, in all his aspects. An Athiest believes there isn't. :PPaul tagged it earlier
...only you aren't, because you're using it to imply that religion and atheism are equivalent, which they aren't.
Again, I can posit any number of things, but sans proof, they aren't worthy of further consideration. Atheists expect only that religions be held to the same standard.
Do you feel the burden of proof doesn't rest with he who asserts the positive, as Russell suggested? Or do you believe that religion is somehow different, deserving of an exception? It is self-evident that it is impossible to simply believe everything asserted (many such assertions are mutually exclusive!), so what makes your religion different from any number of others? Why would we start with your extremely specific set of suppositions that and assume those to be correct?
Bugley, I think you're taking Matthew's different examples and misunderstanding him to be placing them in a single syllogism.And I think you're missing that he's doing exactly that. :)
Edit: Will elaborate momentarily. :)
Ok, elaboration, as promised. Note this will likely be my final post in this thread, as things seem to have devolved into round-robin straw man assassinations.
He's using "belief" in two different senses. In one sense, it means "something I hold to be true." In another, it means religion, with all the associated trapping and dogma.
I can posit any number of things, but sans proof, they aren't worthy of further consideration. Atheists expect only that religions be held to the same standard. Of course, they aren't, because they don't hold up, and so we get attempts to obscure where the burden of proof rests...
Bugley, I have truly enjoyed reading your well thought out and funny posts. Please don't give up on this thread. Two sides are needed for a stimulating debate that may actually come to a conclusion one day.
Given the requests in this thread, I will also make this my final post here:
Sure, belief can mean holding a single proposition or holding an entire body of related beliefs. Either can be atheistic or theistic, and so the insistence that atheism is a belief, or characteristic of beliefs, holds, just as the opposite is true with theism.Beyond this issue of clarification, what I take as crucial is that you have missed, or missed the force of, my comments about proof above.
You too, yummy leaf man. Don't give up on this thread. We need well-thought out critques and responses if we are going to get anywhere as a society.
|
|
Bugley, I have truly enjoyed reading your well thought out and funny posts. Please don't give up on this thread. Two sides are needed for a stimulating debate that may actually come to a conclusion one day.
Bugley, I think you're taking Matthew's different examples and misunderstanding him to be placing them in a single syllogism.And I think you're missing that he's doing exactly that. :)
Edit: Will elaborate momentarily. :)
Ok, elaboration, as promised. Note this will likely be my final post in this thread, as things seem to have devolved into round-robin straw man assassinations.
He's using "belief" in two different senses. In one sense, it means "something I hold to be true." In another, it means religion, with all the associated trapping and dogma.
I can posit any number of things, but sans proof, they aren't worthy of further consideration. Atheists expect only that religions be held to the same standard. Of course, they aren't, because they don't hold up, and so we get attempts to obscure where the burden of proof rests...
Probably when the last atheist (or theist) brains the last theist (or atheist) with a rock. This is the song that never ends,
Given the requests in this thread, I will also make this my final post here:
Sure, belief can mean holding a single proposition or holding an entire body of related beliefs. Either can be atheistic or theistic, and so the insistence that atheism is a belief, or characteristic of beliefs, holds, just as the opposite is true with theism.Beyond this issue of clarification, what I take as crucial is that you have missed, or missed the force of, my comments about proof above.
Apparently so. :/
"I do not think the easter bunny is not real." That does NOT equate to "I think the easter bunny is real."
Atheism asserts NOTHING, asking only that we accept that for which there is a preponderance of the evidence. Religion asserts all sorts of things that have no basis in observed reality. Equating the two is incomprehensible to me, as is using semantics to "prove" the point.
The burden of proof rests with he who asserts the positive. There's a reason that's an axiom: Rejecting it leads to all sorts of ridiculous conclusions. Seriously; try it.
Well, I guess I'm breaking my attempt to not post here.
It's not semantics to say that asserting nothing is asserting something, it's just the way that it is. And to be precise, you're asserting all kinds of things, Bugley, not just one: that we should accept preponderance of evidence, what is preponderance, what is evidence, that reality is observable, and so forth.
I feel like you are getting angry, but perhaps I am mistaken. Asserting burden of proof is just another proposition that we would argue about, and perhaps not come to terms on. Moreover, it may be contextual and relational, to what shrine of eternal law would we go to that we might discover the truth of the proposition, "The burden of proof rests with he who asserts the positive."? And if it is true, note that it's an axiom: i.e., a matter of faith and not "proof based on a preponderance of evidence."
on DVD (that I own) entitled Jesus Christ, Vampire Hunter. :P
...if its what I think it is, its both terrible and hilarious? Does jesus fight waves of hippies all coming from the same van?
|
|
Given the requests in this thread, I will also make this my final post here:
Sure, belief can mean holding a single proposition or holding an entire body of related beliefs. Either can be atheistic or theistic, and so the insistence that atheism is a belief, or characteristic of beliefs, holds, just as the opposite is true with theism.Beyond this issue of clarification, what I take as crucial is that you have missed, or missed the force of, my comments about proof above.
Apparently so. :/
Atheism asserts NOTHING, asking only that we accept that for which there is a preponderance of the evidence. Religion asserts all sorts of things that have no basis in observed reality. Equating the two is incomprehensible to me, as is using semantics to "prove" the point.
Rejecting the axiom that the burden of proof rests with he who asserts the positive leads to all sorts of ridiculous conclusions. Seriously; try it.
Bugley,
You're missing the leafy one's point. "Evidence" requires some underlying beliefs to be true. That reality is an objective fact. That our senses reliably capture this fact. That our brains can comprehend what our senses tell us. None of those underlying assumptions can be proved because without those assumptions there can be no evidence.Granted, this is going further into philosophy of thought than we probably want to go. But atheism does have some asserted beliefs that have no evidence for them, largely around what constitutes evidence.
Well for one the first amendment says what the federal Government should and should not do. Not the state. It is only very recently that the courts have started going beyond the power that is invested in them and declaring what a state can or cannot do.
I think this is what many conservatives point to when they say legisating from the bench or activist judges. It is also why judges are less trusted to be fair and impartial these days.
on DVD (that I own) entitled Jesus Christ, Vampire Hunter. :P...if its what I think it is, its both terrible and hilarious? Does jesus fight waves of hippies all coming from the same van?
Yep; that's the one. It definitely has 'B' movie written all over it. It's so terrible it's funny.
that reality is observable, and so forth.
I really don't think that this is an open question is it?
I mean a man could throw a physical fist at you, but he couldn't pray a bruise on to you for example.
There is a physical universe, but alas I can't remember the philosopher or logician who gave the best argument of that, I think it's Decarte.
I think this is what many conservatives point to when they say legisating from the bench or activist judges. It is also why judges are less trusted to be fair and impartial these days.Well for one the first amendment says what the federal Government should and should not do. Not the state. It is only very recently that the courts have started going beyond the power that is invested in them and declaring what a state can or cannot do.
Exactly so.
|
|
I think this is what many conservatives point to when they say legisating from the bench or activist judges. It is also why judges are less trusted to be fair and impartial these days.Well for one the first amendment says what the federal Government should and should not do. Not the state. It is only very recently that the courts have started going beyond the power that is invested in them and declaring what a state can or cannot do.
So, you'd support tax dollars going to a satanist religious display, then? Freedom of religion means freedom of ALL religions, not just yours.
that reality is observable, and so forth.I really don't think that this is an open question is it?
I mean a man could throw a physical fist at you, but he couldn't pray a bruise on to you for example.
There is a physical universe, but alas I can't remember the philosopher or logician who gave the best argument of that, I think it's Decarte.
Arguments are not "proofs," in the strong sense that it is being used in this thread. I guess it would depend on what you mean by a question being "open". I don't worry about it much, but there are plenty of philosophers for whom it is either open or closed in a way that you or I would be unhappy with, because they are idealists or anti-realists or so forth.
I know there is the Divine, in all his aspects. An Athiest believes there isn't.
I've got to say that this one bugs me a bit, unless I'm misreading it. You appear to assert that you "know" your position is true, whereas those who disagree with you merely "believe" so? My understanding was that, in a Christian sense, omniscience was reserved for God, not His followers.
Well, I guess I'm breaking my attempt to not post here.
It's not semantics to say that asserting nothing is asserting something, it's just the way that it is. And to be precise, you're asserting all kinds of things, Bugley, not just one: that we should accept preponderance of evidence, what is preponderance, what is evidence, that reality is observable, and so forth.
I'm not going down that rat hole; if we can't agree that we aren't brains in a vat, then all conversation is pointless. So I'm asserting that I'm a human, that 2 is 2, etc.
(Asserting nothing = asserting something) simplifies to (nothing = something). Are you sure you're using the word consistently? :P
So, you'd support tax dollars going to a satanist religious display, then? Freedom of religion means freedom of ALL religions, not just yours.I think this is what many conservatives point to when they say legisating from the bench or activist judges. It is also why judges are less trusted to be fair and impartial these days.Well for one the first amendment says what the federal Government should and should not do. Not the state. It is only very recently that the courts have started going beyond the power that is invested in them and declaring what a state can or cannot do.
I for one would rather not have it at all. But then again I'm religious but don't consider Christmas a religious holiday.
I wouldn't be opposed to someone putting up a tree - that's purely traditional, as far as I'm aware.
Christmas Tree has its Germanic / Odinist origins. That got appropriated too.
Assuming we can agree that we aren't brains in a vat, I can't make my position any clearer than Russell's teapot. Burden of proof logically must rest with he who asserts the positive. If it doesn't, then we are left to reconcile the existence of multiple (often mutually exclusive!) deities.
Edit: This has ZERO to do with conservatism, hence amounts to a giant thread-jack. My apologies to the OP.
Christmas Tree has its Germanic / Odinist origins. That got appropriated too.
I'm aware. I'm sort of a Norse Mythos nut :)
Most people don't recognize the origin though and just consider it traditional Xmas decor.
I wouldn't be opposed to someone putting up a tree - that's purely traditional, as far as I'm aware.
As a non-Christian, I have no objection to trees, either, for much the same reason. Satanism is a poor example. But a menorah is pretty traditional -- I assume you wouldn't object to that? I don't. And mistletoe is even more traditional (again dating back to Norse paganism) but plenty of Christians hang it up anyway.
|
|
I know there is the Divine, in all his aspects. An Athiest believes there isn't.I've got to say that this one bugs me a bit, unless I'm misreading it. You appear to assert that you "know" your position is true, whereas those who disagree with you merely "believe" so? My understanding was that, in a Christian sense, omniscience was reserved for God, not His followers.
Kirth,
I'm pretty sure (mostly from the smiley), that Matthew is making a joke by deliberately using believe for the group that's been most vociferous about not being a belief.
I know there is the Divine, in all his aspects. An Athiest believes there isn't.I've got to say that this one bugs me a bit, unless I'm misreading it. You appear to assert that you "know" your position is true, whereas those who disagree with you merely "believe" so? My understanding was that, in a Christian sense, omniscience was reserved for God, not His followers.Kirth,
I'm pretty sure (mostly from the smiley), that Matthew is making a joke by deliberately using believe for the group that's been most vociferous about not being a belief.
That and being a Henotheistic Lutheran Heretic....