Atheists

[geeser]

the stand Flew is taking, actually has nothing in common with the world's religions. but the meaning for all intents and purposes, is the same as the meaning of atheism. If I decided that Flew was right, I wouldn't behave any differently, or even need to change my views about any other subject.

no atheist in is right mind could say with utter certainty thay no god exists, that would be infantile in the extreme, this is weak atheism, which I believe Flew has become.
from the very strong atheist he was.

the point being he has'nt gone from rational to irrational.
which is impossible.

 

[Lerxst]

the stand Flew is taking, actually has nothing in common with the world's religions. but the meaning for all intents and purposes, is the same as the meaning of atheism. If I decided that Flew was right, I wouldn't behave any differently, or even need to change my views about any other subject.

no atheist in is right mind could say with utter certainty thay no god exists, that would be infantile in the extreme, this is weak atheism, which I believe Flew has become.
from the very strong atheist he was.

the point being he has'nt gone from rational to irrational.
which is impossible.

Hmmm.

According to infidels.org (a site where most folks are none too happy with Flew), Flew said the following in 2005:

In the many months of my exposure to the media of the English speaking world--it started in November 2004 and is not yet entirely finished--I said many things which I now regret having said and often failed to say things which I now wish I had said.

What I wish I had said was that I have become a deist, a believer in the existence of a God who requires no worship and does no more in human affairs other than to perhaps approve of old-fashioned, without prefix or suffix, justice (as opposed to the 'social' justice of John Rawls and his followers).

So, Flew has positively stated that he is a deist.

A deist is NOT an atheist.

Here is a link to an essay in which an atheist rips him for this:

http://www.secweb.org/index.aspx?action=viewAsset&id=675

 

[qwerty mob]

A deist is NOT an atheist.

Heya. Any comment on "deists are atheists too, they just believe in one more god than i do" -?

I think it's an astounding statement...

I'll "hazard a guess" that most people consider more than just one specific theology and more than just their own philosophy in life. If they reject "other people's God(s)"... why?

Cheers =)

 

[Lerxst]

You know, every atheist on this board would rip me a new asshole if I said:

"I have become a deist, a believer in the existence of a God who requires no worship and does no more in human affairs other than to perhaps approve of old-fashioned, without prefix or suffix, justice."

Shit, there are atheists here that want to rip me a new one because I'm a friggin' agnostic, much less a deist. I've already been called an "amoeba" and likened to a "brick wall" for having the nerve to challenge certain flavors of atheism or defend the notion that people can hold private spiritual convictions without it making them into some kind of moronic sheep culpable for every burned "heretic" and border skirmish throughout history.

 

[geeser]

what I said was "If I decided that Flew was right, I wouldn't behave any differently, or even need to change my views about any other subject."

Weak atheism (also called negative atheism) is the lack of belief in the existence of God or gods, without a commitment to the necessary non-existence of God or gods. Weak atheism contrasts with strong atheism, which is the belief that God or gods do not exist,which is what Flew was. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_atheism
Deism is defined by the view that reason, rather than revelation or tradition, should be the basis of belief in God.
no a deist is not a weak atheist, but there is a paper thin cap between the two.

this is a my gods bigger than you god arguement, pointless.

the main point is he has'nt gone from rational to irrational, has he. which is what people who say they converted to a religion usuelly expect us to believe.

 

[november]

no it's not.

I always thought it was factual.

no quite the contrary, it's your problem if you want to be taken seriously.

Bah, quit taking me so seriously.

my ignorance is not in question yours is.

You called me a christian, then went off topic with some weak-@ss theory about atheists.

And by the way, your ignorance is not in question, it's on display.

if you truly understood atheism you'ld know how laughable it is to say, you could convert to a religion, or any belief in the supernatural or a god.

Laugh until you can't laugh no more, and when you're done laughing, don't forget to shave.

By the way, who's that little boy in your avatar?

 

[qwerty mob]

Strong atheism is not a belief, sorry it was defined that way; if one believes it is belief, then one can't reasonably call me that. I have a limited, specialized knowledge set, just as any other Human does, and this includes a penchant for reasoning and communicating as clearly and concisely as possible; I dislike the term for other reasons, but the ideas are larger than the labelling, so here goes-

I suggest that every single other definition of "God" but the following has unreconcilable flaws:

"Gods are imaginary, mythological beings"

It should be right there under g-o-d in every dictionary; not "small men" "money" or "anything that is worshipped"

...

One can't say "It can't be known what those words mean"- it is a definition of any, all and every God, god and goddess ever dreamt up anywhere, anytime, by anyone, and it is most fatal to the proposition of that atheism is, in any way, a belief.

One can't believe in an incoherent thing, not rationally, not even jokingly, not honestly; every other definition of "what God is" is an abysmal failure.

...

To drive the point home, consider this- "I'm not an 'atheist' because I don't believe- but because other people do."


The shorter version: "What God?"


...

Apologies for hitting this head on, so strongly.

Please think it over.

Thanks

 

[Mythbuster]

You called me a christian, then went off topic with some weak-@ss theory about atheists.

What's wrong november ? Need your little sky daddy to help you ? Still want your bottle reward after dead ? Silly weak worshiping primate

 

[Lerxst]

what I said was "If I decided that Flew was right, I wouldn't behave any differently, or even need to change my views about any other subject."

Weak atheism (also called negative atheism) is the lack of belief in the existence of God or gods, without a commitment to the necessary non-existence of God or gods. Weak atheism contrasts with strong atheism, which is the belief that God or gods do not exist,which is what Flew was. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_atheism
Deism is defined by the view that reason, rather than revelation or tradition, should be the basis of belief in God.
no a deist is not a weak atheist, but there is a paper thin cap between the two.

this is a my gods bigger than you god arguement, pointless.

the main point is he has'nt gone from rational to irrational, has he. which is what people who say they converted to a religion usuelly expect us to believe.

Ok, let me try to summarize: you are saying that one can be a deist and be rational. Is that right?

 

[november]

What's wrong november ?

I took a shit and ran out of toilet paper. Care to lend me a hand?

Need your little sky daddy to help you ? Still want your bottle reward after dead ? Silly weak worshiping primate

You sound like a real nerd.

Just curious, do you wear a trench coat when you're myth busting?

 

[qwerty mob]

Hi.

Spiritualists don't sit there waiting for magic.

They sit there making excuses for it's absence...?

That is a ridiculous notion brought on by atheistic teachings.

What atheistic teachings?

It is, but do you feel victimized by society because of your atheistic beliefs?

What atheistic beliefs?

By the way, I too was an atheist.

I suggest you still are, relative to specific deities.

Unless you've forgotten whatever beliefs and teachings...

I believe we all need to be educated, and respectful towards others. That's all.

You've only got a diploma in diplomacy so far, but don't let anyone give you the third degree for it.

You're a fun read.

Cheers

 

[november]

They sit there making excuses for it's absence...?

"Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence." So "excuses", in this case, are perfectly legitimate.

What atheistic teachings?

There's a general belief within' the atheistic community, that religious people are weaker than them, hence the need for a god. (see above)

What atheistic beliefs?

The belief in a godless creation, and moreover, the belief that religious people are weird, weak, dull, etc.

I suggest you still are, relative to specific deities.

Unless you've forgotten whatever beliefs and teachings...

Teachings and beliefs are relative, Mr.(?) Atheist.

You've only got a diploma in diplomacy so far,

Well, if nothing else, I'm entertaining.

but don't let anyone give you the third degree for it.

Why not? I happen to enjoy the occasional conflict. Hell, that's why I'm here!

You're a fun read.

Cheers

You're a fun puff. :m:

Cheers to you and yours.

 

[geeser]

Ok, let me try to summarize: you are saying that one can be a deist and be rational. Is that right?

to a degree, the theists can be rational to a degree also.
a deist is one thousand percent more rational then a theist, but slightly less than a weak atheist, just because of one little flaw, in there thinking.

 

[geeser]

By the way, who's that little boy in your avatar?

my son, when he was two, handsome isn't he.

 

[Sarkus]

to a degree, the theists can be rational to a degree also.
a deist is one thousand percent more rational then a theist, but slightly less than a weak atheist, just because of one little flaw, in there thinking.

Ah - like a women can be just a bit pregnant - and a hole can only be partially dug.

Certain definitions of God, in my view, are entirely rational - e.g. "The First Cause" - "Everything that is Unknowable".
So is the non-existence of God.

What is irrational is to believe that a certain definition of God actually exists.

 

[geeser]

Ah - like a women can be just a bit pregnant - and a hole can only be partially dug.

sorry sarkus, does'nt equate, you can be rational in every other aspect, of you life.
ever been jealous or scared of the dark, would'nt you agree that was irrational.

Certain definitions of God, in my view, are entirely rational - e.g. "The First Cause"

are you a deist.

"Everything that is Unknowable".
So is the non-existence of God.

as was said by me a few post previous.

Weak atheism (also called negative atheism) is the lack of belief in the existence of God or gods, without a commitment to the necessary non-existence of God or gods.

no atheist in is right mind could say with utter certainty that no god exists, that would be infantile in the extreme.

What is irrational is to believe that a certain definition of God actually exists.

agreed.

 

[Sarkus]

sorry sarkus, does'nt equate, you can be rational in every other aspect, of you life.
ever been jealous or scared of the dark, would'nt you agree that was irrational.

Apologies, you are correct - comment was meant as a throw-away remark only.

are you a deist.

Nope.
I can see that certain definitions of "God" are rational (e.g. the two I gave above), but why call them "God" and not what they are - as to use the word "God" implies far more to them than what they are.

For example, if someone defines "God" as the chair on which they sit - I would have difficulty in not accepting that there is indeed a chair - but I would merely label it a chair and not "God".
If I see that the chair does everything that the "God" is supposed to do - does this make me a believer in the "God"? Does this make me religious, or a "deist"?

I hope that answers the question?

 

[Lerxst]

What is irrational is to believe that a certain definition of God actually exists.

And what Flew said was (emphasis mine):

"I have become a deist, a believer in the existence of a God..."

I don't know how much more clear one can be. Do you think he can be any more clear?

He believes a God exists.

So you are telling me he IS irrational.

Yet geeser tells me "a deist is one thousand percent more rational then a theist, but slightly less than a weak atheist, just because of one little flaw, in there thinking."

So what is it, my atheist interlocutors? I have heard a range of opinions on this now. I've heard people here claim that even the tiniest smidgen of god-talk is so unacceptable that they won't consider for a moment that Einstein could possibly have been a pantheist, and that every quote of his mentioning God was some sort of PR stunt. I've been told that no religious person is intelligent - no, not a one. And I've been told that theists CANNOT be scientists (and I don't need any help on that one, thanks, it is obviously, demonstrably FALSE, and anyone here should be embarrassed to offer it as an opinion).

But now I find out that as long as I posit an impersonal, creative force kind of God, something intelligent yet hands-off, something greater than or equal to Einstein's pantheistic God, and believe in him, I can still stay in the ranks of the rational.

Or not. Which is it?

 

[Lerxst]

I find it interesting that Deism is found somehow intellectually acceptable around here by even one of the atheists.

Deism:

The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.

But all you atheists out there know as well as I do that using *solely reason* you CANNOT get to God. There are no rational arguments that establish the existence of God. First Cause? Nope. Teleological? Nope. All these arguments suck, and you know it, and I know it. So why hold such a positive belief based on *reason*? You can't. What is the proper response to someone who says they have arrived by God via reason? "Show me."

So why on earth would a deist be cut any more slack that a theist?

 

[Sarkus]

He believes a God exists.

So you are telling me he IS irrational.

Yep.
Fun, isn't it.

Yet geeser tells me "a deist is one thousand percent more rational then a theist, but slightly less than a weak atheist, just because of one little flaw, in there thinking.

There are 2 things being considered here:
1. Which definitions of God does reason allow/permit;
2. Belief in the existence of that God.

As an atheist (weak) I am happy to discuss and agree/disagree on which definitions of God I consider to be "reasonable".
But any belief in something for which there is no evidence is irrational, no matter which way you look at it.

So what is it, my atheist interlocutors? I have heard a range of opinions on this now. I've heard people here claim that even the tiniest smidgen of god-talk is so unacceptable that they won't consider for a moment that Einstein could possibly have been a pantheist, and that every quote of his mentioning God was some sort of PR stunt. I've been told that no religious person is intelligent - no, not a one. And I've been told that theists CANNOT be scientists (and I don't need any help on that one, thanks, it is obviously, demonstrably FALSE, and anyone here should be embarrassed to offer it as an opinion).

LOL! A bit harsh, although I'm sure those things have been labelled at the "believers" at some point in the history of this forum.

I just find it... odd... that religion is the one area where people are allowed to be so blatantly irrational - and are in fact encouraged to be so.
In all other walks of life the person could be as rational as anyone else - but yet where God is concerned they fall over in that regard.

But now I find out that as long as I posit an impersonal, creative force kind of God, something intelligent yet hands-off, something greater than or equal to Einstein's pantheistic God, and believe in him, I can still stay in the ranks of the rational.

Or not. Which is it?

Not in my books.
Others will of course disagree, and others will try to claim whatever they believe in is rational.

Atheism (weak) is the only rational position.
Holding a belief in something for which there is no evidence is irrational.

But luckily, for the majority, the irrational alternatives are not harmful and can be exceedingly beneficial.