Atheist Fundamentalism and the Limits of Science

S.A.M. said:
In other words the position is "don't know"? or "don't believe"?

I think one can see it as a spectrum, but an agnostic atheist is a misnomer.

The agnostic says I don't know

The agnostic atheist : I don't know and don't believe

So does the atheist say : I know and I don't believe?
Click to expand...

Why not? I don't know whether the bits of cucumber I put down the garbage disposal this morning turn to gold on the way to the sewer or not. But I don't believe they do. I think I'm safe in my belief. I'm both agnostic with regard to cucumber turning to gold -since I can't verify the process, and atheistic with regard to the belief in golden cucumber bits dropping into the sewer.

There's nothing wrong with believing that something doesn't exist and still admitting that one cannot know for sure whether the belief is correct. In that regard, Photizo is right for a change. Rationalists who have come to the agnostic-atheist conclusion are unwilling to believe in the supernatural since there is no evidence to suggest that the supernatural either exists or is necessary. There is, however, a preponderance of evidence that the supernatural is a human construct, designed to explain that which humans are ignorant about.

I am, however, willing to believe anything that has legitimate evidence to support it. Contrary to what Photizo might want to believe about those that reject his superstitions.
 
SkinWalker said:
I am, however, willing to believe anything that has legitimate evidence to support it. Contrary to what Photizo might want to believe about those that reject his superstitions.


This should take us back nicely to the subject of this thread. You will believe anything that has " legitimate " evidence to support it. A theist will claim to have "legitimate " evidence for the existence of god. An atheist will reject what a theist regards as evidence. I think this is where we came in.
Click to expand...
 
We can only talk about the limits of science at this point in time. Who can say what the next 50 or 100 years will bring ? Some brainscan experiments appear to show that when certain areas of the brain are stimulated subjects report feelings of ectasy, a oneness with the universe and so on. The reported experiences closely resemble those of mystics and devoted practitioners of meditation, e. g., Buddhist monks.

But even if such areas of the brain could be mapped and shown to be the seat of religious experience, a theist is likely to argue that god made us that way so we can know him. Impasse, and I cannot see how these two ways of looking at the world, the scientific and the religious can ever br reconciled.
 
Last edited:
Myles,

An agnostic is someone who denies that he has any knowledge of whether god exists or not. The only position he has is sitting on the fence.[/QUOTE]

The definition of atheism as lacking a beleif versus outright holding the beleif there are no Gods has to do with the ontological argument. An Atheist must be as defined lacking a beleif. Other than that it probably wouldn't matter in general conversation.

Anyway, I'm agnostic atheist, I am not sitting on a fence, I'm acknowledging the limitation of logically "proving" something (we can not prove there are no Gods and Goddesses or even FSM) and I lack a beleif in all of them.

Michael
 
Atheist must be as defined lacking a beleif
Click to expand...

I think that is an element of intellectual dishonesty at play here. Atheists like to think of themselves as rational and use the excuse of denial of belief rather than no belief to maintain their self assessment.

Its like any other group.

All the atheists I have seen here are pure atheists, some are really just atheists who know about empiricism and like to think of themselves as rational and use creative definitions.
 
Michael said:
Myles,

An agnostic is someone who denies that he has any knowledge of whether god exists or not. The only position he has is sitting on the fence.
Click to expand...


The definition of atheism as lacking a beleif versus outright holding the beleif there are no Gods has to do with the ontological argument. An Atheist must be as defined lacking a beleif. Other than that it probably wouldn't matter in general conversation


Yes , I noticed you mentioned Kant when you were talking to LG. His argument that existence is not a predicate was aimed at Descartes ontological argument.

My stand is that there is not the slightest bit of evidence for god, so I accord him the same status as a unicorn. I admit to being as recalcitrant as a theist
 
Not really and it becomes apparent during a debate concerning the ontological argument that the meaning of the words atheist and theist must be precise. This debate was initiated by theists using it as an argument for the existence of God 2000 years ago so blame them!! :)

Really though - the logic of such definitions does become apparent when you read the various debates and this has implications outside of pure theological debate but just meaning, reason and logic in general.
 
Myles said:
[/B]

The definition of atheism as lacking a beleif versus outright holding the beleif there are no Gods has to do with the ontological argument. An Atheist must be as defined lacking a beleif. Other than that it probably wouldn't matter in general conversation


Yes , I noticed you mentioned Kant when you were talking to LG. His argument that existence is not a predicate was aimed at Descartes ontological argument.

My stand is that there is not the slightest bit of evidence for god, so I accord him the same status as a unicorn. I admit to being as recalcitrant as a theist
Click to expand...
Then I'm not sure why you disagree and take this "fence sitting argument" where doe that fit in?
 
Because I have met people who, when asked whether they believe in god
( s ) have given answers like; " I haven't a clue ", " . They neither believed nor disbelieved. Now it seem to me that if someone does not rule out the possibility of a god on the one hand, but makes no claim to knowledge of god on the other, he is in the neutral corner , so to speak.

That's what sitting on the fence means to me, whatever name one gives to the person who takes up that position ( pun intended )
 
Last edited:
S.A.M. said:
All the atheists I have seen here are pure atheists, some are really just atheists who know about empiricism and like to think of themselves as rational and use creative definitions.
Click to expand...

How many people have you met who regard themselves as irrational, irrespective of what they believe ?
 
Just on a side note:
WIKI:
Noah Webster was a devout Christian. His speller was very moralistic, and his first lesson began "Be not anxious for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink ; nor for your body, what ye shall put on ; for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of these things."

His 1828 American Dictionary contained the greatest number of Biblical definitions given in any reference volume. Webster considered "education useless without the Bible." Webster learned 20 different languages in finding definitions for which a particular word is used. [Preface to the 1828 edition of Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language]
“ In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed...No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people. ”

Webster released his own edition of the Bible in 1833, called the Common Version. He used the King James Version as a base, and consulted the Hebrew and Greek along with various other versions and commentaries. Webster molded the KJV to correct grammar, replaced words that were no longer used, and did away with words and phrases that could be seen as offensive.


Noah was a clever Xian and Webster's dictionary uses a definition of Atheist that is at odds with the definition of Atheist when one make an argument against Gods using the Ontological argument.

Atheist:
1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity


Just something interesting,
Michael
 
I never knew they had printing presses in Noah's time.
Joking apart, that was interesting but the bit about instructing children in Christianity made my hackles rise. I see religious indoctrination as a form of child abuse.

If kids are presented with different points of view , that's a different matter.
 
Science doesn't work with absolutes like "proof". You probably only find that in math. Science works with probabilities. That is how my atheism is based on a scientific model of rationality. Despite the obvious fact that without omniscience I cannot search the entire universe and claim there is no God, but I can say that the existence of such a thing is so unlikely as to be unreasonable to believe.

 
from a- "without" + theos "a god"
Click to expand...

So does being "without a god" imply that one believes gods do not exist or that one lacks a belief in gods - ergo is without them?

Of course you're a theist, so you probably wont even recognise the difference.
 
S.A.M. said:
Webster did not invent the words.

atheist
1571, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny the gods, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (c.1534) which is perhaps from It. atheo "atheist."

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=atheos&searchmode=none
Click to expand...
I didn't say he invented them - just that Webster uses a definition that is at odds with an ontological rebuttal - and did so knowingly.
 
Indeed they do.. just this morning I had two atheists knock on my door telling me that the only way to salvation was to believe that gods dont exist...

:bugeye:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top