Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I must admit to a certain fascination over the lengths some seem inclined to go to over this labeling stuff. It first appeared during a long exchange wherein an atheist (not to be named) found himself backed into a corner after asserting no God existed. He subsequently began back-pedaling and qualifying and otherwise confusing the issue until he seemed to hit on what he felt was the right definition. There have been numerous iterations and extensions of the same theme ever since. No one is now willing to assert that no God exists . . . without qualifying it. Now it is the popular "there is insufficient evidence to believe in a God" . . . NOT there is no God. It has been fascinating to watch. They seem satisfied that this definition justifies their default position of no God . . . without definitely asserting it. Quite entertaining tap dancing overall . . . but not very convincing, I'm afraid.
Asserting no gods exist is a claim of knowledge. That isn't what theism or it's antithesis is about. It's about belief. Besides, the word god is far to ambiguous to make any positive claims about. Frankly, I don't even know what it means. How can you possibly believe in something that isn't well defined?
The scientific, rational process requires a well defined hypothesis. "God does not exist" is not a well defined hypothesis. The problem is that "god" is not well defined. It is not verifiable as it was stated here. Likewise, saying "god exists" is also not verifiable without defining what exactly "god" is.
This is an interesting debate but clearly has a tremendous emotional element to it. It goes to the core of who we are, our cultural prejudices, and upbringing. In fact, one could argue that those are really the only issues at play here. After all, I do not see any arguments presented that would be inclusive for the existence (or not) of Isis, Shiva or Zeus along with the existence of the Abrahamic god. Much of the debate here is centered on a particular god, and the outcome of that debate does not settle the general case at all.
I must admit to a certain fascination over the lengths some seem inclined to go to over this labeling stuff. It first appeared during a long exchange wherein an atheist (not to be named) found himself backed into a corner after asserting no God existed. He subsequently began back-pedaling and qualifying and otherwise confusing the issue until he seemed to hit on what he felt was the right definition. There have been numerous iterations and extensions of the same theme ever since. No one is now willing to assert that no God exists . . . without qualifying it. Now it is the popular "there is insufficient evidence to believe in a God" . . . NOT there is no God. It has been fascinating to watch. They seem satisfied that this definition justifies their default position of no God . . . without definitely asserting it. Quite entertaining tap dancing overall . . . but not very convincing, I'm afraid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOTaTHEIST
Asserting no gods exist is a claim of knowledge. That isn't what theism or it's antithesis is about.
And yet atheists aggressively claim it as default . . . pretending they are NOT asserting it! A cute rhetorical trick . . . but fallacious. Whatever is assumed by default IS asserted. When No God is claimed as default . . . it is asserted to be true. That IS a truth claim . . . all the rigamarole and folderol with semantics notwithstanding.
Quote:
It's about belief. Besides, the word god is far to ambiguous to make any positive claims about. Frankly, I don't even know what it means. How can you possibly believe in something that isn't well defined?
No . . . the preceding is about existence or non-existence of God. Beliefs ABOUT God are separate issues and stand or fall on their own.
So you have a positive belief in some sort of god then?
I am open to hearing an argument for whatever god you want to propose the existence of. I will then decide if I believe that god exists. If I said that no, I can never believe in any sort of god, that would mean I am prejudiced against a possible very rational argument before even hearing it. Same can be said for answering 'yes'. Both are prejudiced views. Prejudiced views are hardly scientific in approach.
I don't believe in the Christian god but that does not mean I am an atheist. I am not discounting the possibility that someone can present to me their putative god and a rational argument for the existence of that god, and I will then believe in it/him/her. I am then a theist. But until that time comes, I am stuck in the netherworld of not an atheist, not a theist. Since I am waiting for the rational argument for a god, any god, I am by definition an agnostic.
Here you are giving religion a special dispensation that you do not grant anything else that you don't necessarily believe in.
There are many things that a rational adult does not believe in, like the tooth fairy. Despite this, we COULD argue theoretically that a tooth fairy might exist out there in the cosmos somewhere. After all, we don't know everything that might be out there, right? And we COULD argue that we're just "waiting" for a rational argument for a tooth fairy, any tooth fairy.
But DO we really think that way? No. So why would we think that way about gods?
Why, when it comes to gods, do people suddenly put on the brakes of their disbelief and say, "Weeelllll, I guess MAYBE there's a god out there. I just don't know! Therefore, I'm an agnostic. Because I'm waiting for a rational argument."
But why would you be "waiting" for a rational argument? That presupposes that there IS one and you just haven't heard it yet.
The atheist position is simply that no gods exist until evidence can be provided that one does exist. And since I doubt you're agnostic when it comes to other far fetched claims such as leprechauns and fairies, why would you be agnostic about gods?
It just seems to me that the ONLY reason for being agnostic about gods is because some part of religion and deity worship has insinuated itself into your thinking so that you can't quite bring yourself into patently rejecting the existence of gods the way you can patently reject the existence of Santa.
If I said that no, I can never believe in any sort of god, that would mean I am prejudiced against a possible very rational argument before even hearing it. Same can be said for answering 'yes'. Both are prejudiced views. Prejudiced views are hardly scientific in approach.
I must admit to a certain fascination over the lengths some seem inclined to go to over this labeling stuff.
Yet it is you doing the labelling. You label all of existence "god" and then declare that since exstence exists - god therefore exists. The reason we discuss labels so heavily is that you flood the forum with pro-god arguments that are almost exclusively linguistic trickery in nature. If you make labels the core tenet of your arguments - then you will find that the topic of labels will be the core element of the rebuttals you receive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
No one is now willing to assert that no God exists
You are engaging in some historical revisionism in the extreme here - with very little application of honesty in the process. I have not seen a single user on this forum - named or otherwise - back peddaling in any way. Very few people on here assert that no god exists.
How could we assert such a thing when nearly every atheist on this forum acknowledges our inability to prove a negative?
Are you so desperate for a "win" on this forum that you have to invent positions for people that they never held in order to pretend to yourself they were forced to back pedal from those positions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Now it is the popular "there is insufficient evidence to believe in a God"
Insufficient? That is your word - and it does not in any way protray the reality. You have offered NO evidence to believe there is a god. "Insufficient" suggests you have given _some_ but it was not enough. Which is a misrepresentation of the truth that you have in fact offered _none_.
See why we are so obsessed with labels? By simply switching from "No" to "Insufficient" you have constructed a false reality. Words are important - especially when someone like yourself uses them to make real what is not real - and make true what is an outright falsehood.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
They seem satisfied that this definition justifies their default position of no God . . . without definitely asserting it.
This is a "default position" you keep inventing and assigning to them - which none of them have expressed themselves. You are simply continuing your tactic of attacking positions people do not - and have not - actually held.
The scientific, rational process requires a well defined hypothesis. "God does not exist" is not a well defined hypothesis. The problem is that "god" is not well defined.
I don't see how something being poorly defined gets in the way of lacking belief in it. Actually, seems like another good reason for an atheist to lack belief in it. After all, it would be pretty nonsensical to say "I believe X exists, and I don't understand the first thing about what it is or what it does".
Last edited by KCfromNC; 03-13-2014 at 06:51 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
