Christianity

[Belinda]

It can explain how it OUGHT to be used, if people were willing to be precise. That they often are not, is neither here nor there in the matter.

That is an interesting idea. You have thought about it. Most people would agree with you that the etymology and usage of 'atheist' are the same. However in past times practically everyone believed in God (or a god) and not to do so was literally unthinkable.
The word 'atheist' was used to mean someone who did not believe in God the proper way , like believing something that was not doctrinal. I can't quote anything that was actually said, bur no doubt I could research actual utterances.

The word “atheist” evolved from a pejorative social label—someone flouting religious norms—to its modern meaning: someone who explicitly denies the existence of deity. The first self‑described atheist in that stronger sense appears only in the late 18th century, with earlier uses largely accusatory
Wikipedia

Do you hope to have a historical perspective on matters of belief?
.

I understand that Christians in ancient Rome were accused of atheism for rejecting the pantheon.

That is the sort of thing I mean, Martin. The word has different meanings according to popular usage of the time and place.
Immanuel has not yet persuaded me that he understands that the meaning of a word is its use.

[Belinda]

I understand that Christians in ancient Rome were accused of atheism for rejecting the pantheon.

That is correct. They were called “Atheists” for failing to believe in enough gods. It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to us know, and that should tell us all just how badly the word’s been abused, historically.

But it’s just as bad today. If you look up “Atheist” on the internet, you’ll find it used to refer to all kinds of things, ranging from real Atheists, to various forms of agnostics, to people who don’t think about the question at all (sometimes called “Apatheists” — ironic, because their position is supposed to be a stand on something they claim not even to care about), to Humanists (who are actually deifiers of humanity) and even to some Buddhists. Basically, the label is being bullshitted (pace H. Frankfurt) out of existence.

And understandably so. Atheism, actual Atheism ( a.k.a. the claim that no God exists), is irrational; and yet, it’s the only definitive and imperious position that allows the dismissing of the whole God discussion. So people want both to be Atheists, and yet not to be Atheists. They want to BE that, in order to insult and challenge “religious” people from a commanding position, a posture of intellectual superiority and certainty; but they certainly also don’t want to BE CAUGHT being one, since Atheism is so obviously irrational and debunkable with the simplest of questions.

So what can they do? They fudge. They fudge a lot. When they want to be strident and superior, they declare themselves to be Atheists. But when they are challenged, they retreat into some form of agnosticism, or just squirt mud into the water to keep from being identified at all. And their favourite dodge is to say something as ambiguous and silly as, “I don’t say there are no gods; I just lack belief.” And they hope that “lacking belief” is sufficiently soft and confusing to exempt them from critique.

Of course, a moment’s thought shows how silly that is. All one has to ask is, “When you say you ‘lack belief’ in God,” are you trying to make a personal declaration of your own uncertainty, or are you trying to say “I lack belief, so you ought to, as well”? The first is the only intelligent thing they could be saying, but the second is what they want you to believe. They want you to absorb with their “lacking” the implication that you ought to be “lacking” too, and, in fact, that everybody should be “lacking.” But here again, the question returns: what’s your evidentiary basis? And they have none, and don’t want to be asked to produce any. So they recirculate the same ambiguous answer: “I just lack belief; don’t ask me to explain."

So there it all is: the sorry history of the abuse of a word, including its present day vacillations. And this is why I suggest we simply do with what the word actually means. An “Atheist” is a person who says, “No gods.” Everybody else who uses the word differently is simply a different kind of weasel.

But the meaning of a word is its use, no more no less. The meaning of all language is social.

[Immanuel Can]

That is the sort of thing I mean, Martin. The word has different meanings according to popular usage of the time and place.
Immanuel has not yet persuaded me that he understands that the meaning of a word is its use.

You’re missing my point. I’m quite happy to admit the word’s badly abused. I’ve even explained some of the ways in which it is.

I’m only telling you what I mean when I use the word “Atheist.” And I think you can see that it’s also the literal meaning of the word. But if you want to use it differently, go ahead. However, when I use it, it will still mean exactly what it says: that that person believes he knows there’s no God.

[Immanuel Can]

I understand that Christians in ancient Rome were accused of atheism for rejecting the pantheon.

That is correct. They were called “Atheists” for failing to believe in enough gods. It doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to us know, and that should tell us all just how badly the word’s been abused, historically.

But it’s just as bad today. If you look up “Atheist” on the internet, you’ll find it used to refer to all kinds of things, ranging from real Atheists, to various forms of agnostics, to people who don’t think about the question at all (sometimes called “Apatheists” — ironic, because their position is supposed to be a stand on something they claim not even to care about), to Humanists (who are actually deifiers of humanity) and even to some Buddhists. Basically, the label is being bullshitted (pace H. Frankfurt) out of existence.

And understandably so. Atheism, actual Atheism ( a.k.a. the claim that no God exists), is irrational; and yet, it’s the only definitive and imperious position that allows the dismissing of the whole God discussion. So people want both to be Atheists, and yet not to be Atheists. They want to BE that, in order to insult and challenge “religious” people from a commanding position, a posture of intellectual superiority and certainty; but they certainly also don’t want to BE CAUGHT being one, since Atheism is so obviously irrational and debunkable with the simplest of questions.

So what can they do? They fudge. They fudge a lot. When they want to be strident and superior, they declare themselves to be Atheists. But when they are challenged, they retreat into some form of agnosticism, or just squirt mud into the water to keep from being identified at all. And their favourite dodge is to say something as ambiguous and silly as, “I don’t say there are no gods; I just lack belief.” And they hope that “lacking belief” is sufficiently soft and confusing to exempt them from critique.

Of course, a moment’s thought shows how silly that is. All one has to ask is, “When you say you ‘lack belief’ in God,” are you trying to make a personal declaration of your own uncertainty, or are you trying to say “I lack belief, so you ought to, as well”? The first is the only intelligent thing they could be saying, but the second is what they want you to believe. They want you to absorb with their “lacking” the implication that you ought to be “lacking” too, and, in fact, that everybody should be “lacking.” But here again, the question returns: what’s your evidentiary basis? And they have none, and don’t want to be asked to produce any. So they recirculate the same ambiguous answer: “I just lack belief; don’t ask me to explain."

So there it all is: the sorry history of the abuse of a word, including its present day vacillations. And this is why I suggest we simply do with what the word actually means. An “Atheist” is a person who says, “No gods.” Everybody else who uses the word differently is simply a different kind of weasel.

But the meaning of a word is its use, no more no less. The meaning of all language is social.

If that were so, there would be no way to “abuse” or “misuse” any word.

In point of fact, B., words are part of the common store that belongs to communicators within a given language group. They are not private possessions. However, you can do what they call “stipulating” a meaning, if you wish — that is, it’s perfectly legitimate for you to say something like, “Please understand for the present discussion, that whenever I use the word X, I mean Y, not Z, or A, or C.” As long as you’re clear on what you intend, you’re not being the least dishonest or irrational, if you do that. In fact, in philosophy, stipulating a precise definition is often absolutely essential to keeping the discussion free of confusions, misconceptions, illogical jumps and ambiguity…so it’s the only honest way to proceed, sometimes.

So when I say “Atheist,” I’m giving you fair warning I only mean what the word literally says — a person who claims to know no gods exist. That’s it. And now you know, and all is transparent, and all is legit. The other “uses,” the abuses and misuses of the word, we can now completely ignore.

[Belinda]

That is the sort of thing I mean, Martin. The word has different meanings according to popular usage of the time and place.
Immanuel has not yet persuaded me that he understands that the meaning of a word is its use.

You’re missing my point. I’m quite happy to admit the word’s badly abused. I’ve even explained some of the ways in which it is.

I’m only telling you what I mean when I use the word “Atheist.” And I think you can see that it’s also the literal meaning of the word. But if you want to use it differently, go ahead. However, when I use it, it will still mean exactly what it says: that that person believes he knows there’s no God.

That would be fair enough if you were on each occasion to preamble the particular usage you prefer. Would it not more advance your agenda if you simply said 'unbelievers'? Or 'not doctrinal'?

[Immanuel Can]

That is the sort of thing I mean, Martin. The word has different meanings according to popular usage of the time and place.
Immanuel has not yet persuaded me that he understands that the meaning of a word is its use.

You’re missing my point. I’m quite happy to admit the word’s badly abused. I’ve even explained some of the ways in which it is.

I’m only telling you what I mean when I use the word “Atheist.” And I think you can see that it’s also the literal meaning of the word. But if you want to use it differently, go ahead. However, when I use it, it will still mean exactly what it says: that that person believes he knows there’s no God.

That would be fair enough if you were on each occasion to preamble the particular usage you prefer.

Not necessary.

I told you what it means. You know what it means. From now on, we’re perfectly clear.

I can see why you want to run away from that. But you can’t. I’ve been very, very precise and straightforward in defining the term as I intend to use it.

Would it not more advance your agenda if you simply said 'unbelievers'? Or 'not doctrinal'?

“Unbelief” is not Atheism. Atheism is a belief…a belief that one knows there is no God. “Unbelief” can come in various forms: apathy, agnosticism, willful obduracy…but it implies no knowledge claim. Atheism does.

As for “doctrinal,” that’s way too vague. Every belief system has a “doctrine,” and none exists without one. So we would have to stipulate exactly which “doctrine” was being implied.

As for “advancing my agenda,” the only right agenda would be truth. And it doesn’t need to be “advanced,” but rather, recognized.

[Gary Childress]

You’re missing my point. I’m quite happy to admit the word’s badly abused. I’ve even explained some of the ways in which it is.

I’m only telling you what I mean when I use the word “Atheist.” And I think you can see that it’s also the literal meaning of the word. But if you want to use it differently, go ahead. However, when I use it, it will still mean exactly what it says: that that person believes he knows there’s no God.

That would be fair enough if you were on each occasion to preamble the particular usage you prefer.

Not necessary.

I told you what it means. You know what it means. From now on, we’re perfectly clear.

I can see why you want to run away from that. But you can’t. I’ve been very, very precise and straightforward in defining the term as I intend to use it.

Would it not more advance your agenda if you simply said 'unbelievers'? Or 'not doctrinal'?

“Unbelief” is not Atheism. Atheism is a belief…a belief that one knows there is no God. “Unbelief” can come in various forms: apathy, agnosticism, willful obduracy…but it implies no knowledge claim. Atheism does.

As for “doctrinal,” that’s way too vague. Every belief system has a “doctrine,” and none exists without one. So we would have to stipulate exactly which “doctrine” was being implied.

As for “advancing my agenda,” the only right agenda would be truth. And it doesn’t need to be “advanced,” but rather, recognized.

Then Carl Sagan wasn't an atheist. He would have been an agnostic to you. He didn't necessarily believe there was no creator, mostly he believed that human theology is all bunk.

[Immanuel Can]

That would be fair enough if you were on each occasion to preamble the particular usage you prefer.

Not necessary.

I told you what it means. You know what it means. From now on, we’re perfectly clear.

I can see why you want to run away from that. But you can’t. I’ve been very, very precise and straightforward in defining the term as I intend to use it.

Would it not more advance your agenda if you simply said 'unbelievers'? Or 'not doctrinal'?

“Unbelief” is not Atheism. Atheism is a belief…a belief that one knows there is no God. “Unbelief” can come in various forms: apathy, agnosticism, willful obduracy…but it implies no knowledge claim. Atheism does.

As for “doctrinal,” that’s way too vague. Every belief system has a “doctrine,” and none exists without one. So we would have to stipulate exactly which “doctrine” was being implied.

As for “advancing my agenda,” the only right agenda would be truth. And it doesn’t need to be “advanced,” but rather, recognized.

Then Carl Sagan wasn't an atheist. He would have been an agnostic to you. He didn't necessarily believe there was no creator, mostly he believed that human theology is all bunk.

If you say so. If he had any place in his thinking for even the possibility of God existing, then you’re right: he was an agnostic. If he did not, then he was an Atheist. Fair enough.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

That is an interesting idea. You have thought about it. Most people would agree with you that the etymology and usage of 'atheist' are the same. However in past times practically everyone believed in God (or a god) and not to do so was literally unthinkable.
The word 'atheist' was used to mean someone who did not believe in God the proper way , like believing something that was not doctrinal. I can't quote anything that was actually said, bur no doubt I could research actual utterances.

The word “atheist” evolved from a pejorative social label—someone flouting religious norms—to its modern meaning: someone who explicitly denies the existence of deity. The first self‑described atheist in that stronger sense appears only in the late 18th century, with earlier uses largely accusatory
Wikipedia

Do you hope to have a historical perspective on matters of belief?
.

I understand that Christians in ancient Rome were accused of atheism for rejecting the pantheon.

That is the sort of thing I mean, Martin. The word has different meanings according to popular usage of the time and place.
Immanuel has not yet persuaded me that he understands that the meaning of a word is its use.

He can't.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

“Unbelief” is not Atheism. Atheism is a belief…a belief that one knows there is no God. “Unbelief” can come in various forms: apathy, agnosticism, willful obduracy…but it implies no knowledge claim. Atheism does.

I have unbelief, apart from the subset of warranted, justified, true belief called knowledge. My atheism is a subset of that unbelief, and it is knowledge belief, there is nothing to know of God; I know there is none. I know that I know. My unbelief, non-belief (I do both) comes of rationality. I believe in kindness, love and social justice, because that's what's left when religion, God, unwarranted, unjustified, untrue belief, is exposed, and one chooses their meanings.

[Dubious]

Why god doesn't exist...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YwUZF5 ... x=22&t=23s

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Why god doesn't exist...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YwUZF5 ... x=22&t=23s

Not bad. 6.37, 8.21, 16.17, 23.21 But too kind. There is no doubt. You can hear IC's yeah buts.

[Dubious]

Why god doesn't exist...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YwUZF5 ... x=22&t=23s

Not bad. 6.37, 8.21, 16.17, 23.21 But too kind. There is no doubt. You can hear IC's yeah buts.

When it comes down to god and religion those disgusting forever interfering poop commercials are most appropriate.

[iambiguous]

Absolutely.

Absolutely he's in Hell or absolutely he's in Limbo?

Check and see…there’s no “Limbo” anywhere in the Bible.  Not once.

So, you believe he is burning in Hell? And that all Buddhists will "burn, baby, baby" for all of eternity if they don't accept Jesus as their personal savior?

So, what's your take on Abraham's Bosom? Or the distinction some make between Paradise and Heaven?

Then this part:

"In Catholicism, Limbo is a theological concept describing a state or place for those who die without baptism or prior to Christ's coming, but are not condemned to hell. While not an official dogma, it was a common theological opinion for centuries, particularly concerning unbaptized infants and virtuous individuals who lived before Christ. However, the Catholic Church has largely moved away from Limbo as a formal teaching." 

And what of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and all of the many, many, many folks who went to the grave never having heard of Christ and Christianity?

 

We’re all responsible for what we know.  Those who know less, have to answer for less.  Those who know more, for more.

And of those who know nothing at all of Christianity? For example, take God's very own abortions...stillbirths and miscarriages? They all go to Heaven? After all, what do they have to answer for? And how to even imagine the souls of embryos and fetuses in Heaven.

But their situation is not yours; you know much more, and are thus responsible for much more.  Perhaps you should worry less about what their destiny is, and spend a little more thought on your own.  I suggest it might be prudent.

Sigh...

What on Earth do you think I am attempting to do in asking you to peruse those WLC/RF videos. in order to explore the scientific and historical evidence there. I can't even get WLC to discuss and debate it.

Do you want the Christian answer to that?  Or did you want the Buddhist one? Or were you looking for a Relativistic platitude instead?

Come on, IC, you of all people here know It's not answers I am after. Instead, it's substantive and substantial evidence accumulated to confirm that the answers are applicable to all of us. 

Any number of these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...are eager enough to provide us with answers.

Then don’t ask questions.  Questions imply a sincere desire for answers.

Note to others:

Allow me to translate that:

"If you have a sincere desire to explore Christianity -- to become a True Christian -- then your answers must be entirely in sync with mine."

Unless, of course, I'm wrong. Not to mention that the vast majority of these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...will be left behind?

[promethean75]

Ah! The argument from divine hiddeness. That's what they call it. I use it all the time and didn't know it was an official argument. Good vid, dubious brothers.