Philosophy Now Forum

Here is what Wikipedia has to say:
"Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities."


According to Mr Can and some others, an atheist isn't an Atheist unless they subscribe to the narrowest sense. It is entirely their prerogative to make up their own definitions and speak a private language, but what they mean by Atheist simply isn't what the rest of the planet means by atheist.

Lacewing wrote: What do you think non-theists are going through all the time?

What it is their duty to do, given what they believe. They are instructed by God to share their faith with any who will hear. And basic moral decency requires them to do it, since the alternative is literally to tell the world "go to Hell." Christians are required to seek the good of their neighbour, and even of those who are abusive toward them. It is written, "Love your enemies."

But what precept of Atheism calls for Dawkins to evangelize? Why is an Atheist obligated to care what happens to anyone else, and especially those they regard as enemies?

Lacewing wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:If Atheism wishes to advance no fact claims, and if it doesn't evangelize, then it owes us nothing.

So does theism owe proof under these conditions?

Absolutely.

Immanuel Can wrote:we have every right to expect them to produce evidence for their patently absurd knowledge claim. If they're being so "scientific," let's see their proof.

Surely, that is the minimum reply they deserve.

I can see what you're saying... but you, yourself, do not provide the "minimum reply" that non-theists deserve to their questions/points made of you.

Actually, I do. You can look back at the various conversations I've had on this forum, and see that many times I've gone over such evidence. But you will also see something else, if you track those conversations: that Atheists simply claim that any evidence is not evidence. And ultimately, there is actually nothing you can show to someone that will cause them to believe if they are just bound and determined not to regard any of it.

There's an old saying: "There are none so blind as those who will not see." (John Heywood, 1546)

And I think, in general, Atheism is determined in the heart. It doesn't come from evidence. Even Dawkins himself says he came to his unfaith at the ripe old scientific age of 17. Now, just how well-informed about life, the universe and everything is the average 17-year old?

Immanuel Can wrote: There's an old saying: "There are none so blind as those who will not see." (John Heywood, 1546)

There's another saying: "Immanuel Can is a self important snot head" (Harbal 2016)

I know you're pretending to ignore me because the POWER of my words frighten you, Immanuel, but there's another saying: "You can run but you can't hide" (Some fucker on some 2nd rate US TV. series (probably) 19??)

Harbal wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote: There's an old saying: "There are none so blind as those who will not see." (John Heywood, 1546)

There's another saying: "Immanuel Can is a self important snot head" (Harbal 2016)

I know you're pretending to ignore me because the POWER of my words frighten you, Immanuel, but there's another saying: "You can run but you can't hide" (Some fucker on some 2nd rate US TV. series (probably) 19??)

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Harbal wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote: There's an old saying: "There are none so blind as those who will not see." (John Heywood, 1546)

There's another saying: "Immanuel Can is a self important snot head" (Harbal 2016)

I know you're pretending to ignore me because the POWER of my words frighten you, Immanuel, but there's another saying: "You can run but you can't hide" (Some fucker on some 2nd rate US TV. series (probably) 19??)

Dare I presume you consider me to be an intelligent, rational person, VT?

Harbal wrote:I know you're pretending to ignore me because the POWER of my words frighten you,

Yes. My terror knows no bounds.

I read what you write...if I suspect there's any chance it'll turn out to be worthwhile. It has, at times, in the past.

I just don't see anything in it at the moment.

Immanuel Can wrote:
I just don't see anything in it at the moment.

"Seek and you will find" (Matthew 7:7-8 (whatever the fuck that means))

Immanuel Can wrote:

Harbal wrote:I know you're pretending to ignore me because the POWER of my words frighten you,

Yes. My terror knows no bounds.

I read what you write...if I suspect there's any chance it'll turn out to be worthwhile. It has, at times, in the past.

I just don't see anything in it at the moment.

You are certainly a delicious antidote to all the 'self-important snottery' around the place.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Dubious wrote:Your words are unambiguous, clarity defined, clear as clear can be.j

That's what telling the truth will do for ya.

But again, don't take my word for it. Parse the etymology of "Atheist." It's "a-" particle of negation, meaning "no", plus " "theos," the Greek word for "god."

Analytically, that makes an "Atheist" one who denies the existence of any kind of God(s).

In contrast, "agnostic" is "a-" again, plus "gnosis," the Greek word for "know". An "agnostic" is one of those who admits he does not know whether or not a God or gods exist.

It's terribly straightforward, really. Check it out.

I don't need your insightful definitions or etymology of Atheist, Atheism, Agnostic or Agnosticism. As understood by most and mentioned by others atheism has a very simple definition which couldn't be more transparent...I don't believe in God. It is not possible to state there is NO God (in spite of "A's" negation of "theos" according to the Greek) which I consider due only to the formalities of logic. But you only make a case out of one, the one least accepted and the least logical.

Everyone here already understands your modus operandi and how you manage to weasel out of every absurd statement...and there's plenty of those. You have no idea how false and artificial you make theism sound. Personally, I don't believe you really are a bona fide theist.

Dubious wrote:I don't believe you really are a bona fide theist.

I see him more as a bona headed theist.

Harbal wrote: "Seek and you will find" (Matthew 7:7-8 (whatever the fuck that means))

Old Chinese proverb: Those who Seek mostly find bullshit never to see a blue sky again.

Dubious wrote:I don't need your insightful definitions or etymology of Atheist, Atheism, Agnostic or Agnosticism.

You mean you think they're wrong? Or you already know they're right?

I don't believe in God.

If so, then what do you intend as the importance of that fact to anyone else?

After all, you may not know about a God -- and I'll believe you if you say you don't -- but if you're not making the claim that God actually doesn't exist (and hence, that other people are required to know nothing about God, just as you say you know nothing about Him) then you are not implying that anyone else ought to disbelieve in God. And that would mean you were only making a private, personal claim, not one that binds anybody else. Is that what you want to say?

Well, that's not Richard Dawkins' view of "Atheism." He says that God is a "delusion." And he thinks that rational people are obliged to agree with him. And he thinks that, even though he admits he doesn't know for sure, and is really only a "firm agnostic," to use his words. But Dawkins is full of self-contradiction, so perhaps he's not the best model.

So we'd better clear this up: are you a "firm agnostic," who thinks there might not be a God but admits he doesn't know, or are you a thorough-going Atheist, who thinks he DOES know, and all rational persons are bound to agree with him?

It is not possible to state there is NO God...

Quite true. So you're a "firm agnostic," then?

Personally, I don't believe you really are a bona fide theist.

Well, then, that's the second time your disbelief has led you wrong. But it doesn't much matter. Like God's existence, it will be true if it is true. It will not matter what you believe about it.

Immanuel Can wrote:Why is an Atheist obligated to care what happens to anyone else, and especially those they regard as enemies?

For the same reason as a theist; they're not. Christians like Mr Can are not obligated to care about anything, because they believe that their God gave them free will. Caring is therefore optional, but the punishment for not believing what Mr Can thinks we should, is eternal damnation. What is disgusting about the character of Jesus is that it was him that introduced the threat of eternal suffering into the bible in the first place; there is no mention of it in the old testament. Jesus was not sent to save us, he was sent to scare the living tripe out of us.

uwot wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:Why is an Atheist obligated to care what happens to anyone else, and especially those they regard as enemies?

For the same reason as a theist; they're not. Christians like Mr Can are not obligated to care about anything, because they believe that their God gave them free will. Caring is therefore optional, but the punishment for not believing what Mr Can thinks we should, is eternal damnation. What is disgusting about the character of Jesus is that it was him that introduced the threat of eternal suffering into the bible in the first place; there is no mention of it in the old testament. Jesus was not sent to save us, he was sent to scare the living tripe out of us.

Good point. And the 'fire and damnation' version of 'hell' is a mediaeval invention.

uwot wrote:Jesus was not sent to save us, he was sent to scare the living tripe out of us.

Does this mean that Judas is vindicated?