atheism (was: RE: Democracy... (fwd)) (fwd)
Forwarded message:
From: pjm@spe.com Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 20:13:38 +0200 Subject: atheism (was: RE: Democracy... (fwd)) (fwd)
Personal philosophies are a superset of personal religious beliefs. Personal philosophies that include the concept of a god are clearly religious in nature. Personal philosophies that include the concept of "faith" are probably religious in nature. Personal philosophies that include the concepts of empirical evidence, sceptical inquiry, and willingness to reject previously held positions due to new evidence or argument are probably not religious in nature.
Here is the catch in your distinction, the belief in those empirical positions is fundamentaly based on faith. Critical to those beliefs are at least two (any scientist worth anything could list many more) assumptions that can *only* be taken on faith: The universe and its operation is isotropic and homogenious So clearly a belief in science as a method to describe the relations between individuals and nature (at whatever scale) is fundamentaly based on faith. As to your assertion that such a belief system is not a religion, please take the time to review pantheism. It is clearly a religion in that it addresses the relationship of the individual, society, nature, and God. It does so by abandoning transcendence. You really should read some of Spinoza's work as well as William James'. Everything a person believes, for or against, is fundamentaly based on unprovable axiomatic assumptions whose (in)correctness is based on faith and by extension a belief in the correctness of the holder and the implied fallibility of all other individuals who hold beliefs to the contrary. In a very real sense religion is the epitomy of hubris.
The reason I challenged your assertion is that religious people often use such statements as a basis for further arguments that end up equivocating based on the term religion. They first broaden the definition, by fiat, to be almost meaningless and then later use a much narrower definition to support their ultimate point. I'm not suggesting that you were going to do this; I am simply pointing out why it is something of a sore point.
This entire paragraph makes no sense.
No, they are not. The distinction is crucial to the main point I evidently failed to make in my previous message: Atheism is not a set of beliefs that constitutes a personal philosophy. There are Buddhist atheists, Universalist-Unitarian atheists, objectivist atheists, Wiccan atheists, etc. Atheism isn't even a belief, it is merely the statement of a lack of one particular belief.
No, atheism is the statement that "God could exist, but doesn't". Whether one chooses to hang 'Bhuddism' or 'Wiccan' on is irrelevant. We aren't discussion labels but rather characteristics. Fundamentaly *ALL* atheism states: While it could happen that way, I don't believe it does. Which is identical in meaning to: While it could happen that way, I believe it doesn't.
Getting back to the strong v. weak distinction, the weak atheist position that one "does not believe god(s) exist" does not constitute a belief, a set of beliefs, or a personal philosophy, let alone a religion. The strong atheist position that one "believes god(s) do not exist" is actually making a knowledge claim and so does constitute a belief.
Try to sell that spin-doctor bullshit to somebody else, and read a book on basic logic.
I'm not trying to prove anything either. I'm simply pointing out some issues regarding atheism that are too often ignored or confused.
Hence you are trying to prove that atheism is confused or ignored and as a result is misundestood. I've got news for you, it isn't either. If anyone is confused (and about to be ignored) it's yourself.
Now this part of the discussion I entered to satisfy my own curiosity. Since it is so far off-topic for this list I'd be glad to take it to personal email if you wish.
Thanks but I don't generaly exchange private mail with strangers.
When you say "more than the earthly veil" do you mean that there exist phenomena that cannot, even in principle, be detected by our five senses or by any physical mechanism we can create? If so, how do you know and why would it matter?
You didn't understand a single word in that explanation of transcendance. There are many(!) phenomena that occur in nature that are not transcendental that we can't in principle or practice experience with our five senses. Take your Machian view of reality somewhere else. As to knowing if something matters or not, that is the fundamental issue involved in the question: Does God exist? We're back to where we started. Signing off. ____________________________________________________________________ The seeker is a finder. Ancient Persian Proverb The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sun, 20 Sep 1998, Jim Choate wrote:
Forwarded message:
From: pjm@spe.com Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 20:13:38 +0200 Subject: atheism (was: RE: Democracy... (fwd)) (fwd)
[snip]
No, atheism is the statement that "God could exist, but doesn't". Whether one chooses to hang 'Bhuddism' or 'Wiccan' on is irrelevant. We aren't discussion labels but rather characteristics. Fundamentaly *ALL* atheism states:
While it could happen that way, I don't believe it does.
Which is identical in meaning to:
While it could happen that way, I believe it doesn't.
Getting back to the strong v. weak distinction, the weak atheist position that one "does not believe god(s) exist" does not constitute a belief, a set of beliefs, or a personal philosophy, let alone a religion. The strong atheist position that one "believes god(s) do not exist" is actually making a knowledge claim and so does constitute a belief.
Try to sell that spin-doctor bullshit to somebody else, and read a book on basic logic.
agreed, the strong v. weak atheist argument is _impossible_. however, an interesting premise I posited to my 14 year old son who had gone through his scientific awareness state and consequently declared himself an "aethist". at the time he was in a boarding school and we were in conversation with the chief counselor who happened to be a member of an LDS bishopric: kid: yes, an aethist. father: so... you "deny" God's existence since their is no "proof" of His existence. did you ever consider that in order to "deny" anything, you must have defined that concept? in other words, to deny God, you must have determined that I or someone else has defined God in order for you to be able to "deny" God? ... counselor: is there a difference between belief and faith? ... father: aethism is a concept which is almost impossible to define as it is a denial that if it could it doesnt. it is much easier to defend "agnosticism" where you admit you do not believe, or have faith, because you lack sufficient scientific proof. aethism is not doubting, it is denying, even in the face of proof. consider this in terms of both belief and faith: suppose you die, and despite your lack of belief or faith, you find yourself before the throne of God. as your awareness returns, you look up and the image of God is the image of an orangutan --now what are you going to do? without missing a heartbeat: counselor: I think you better get down on your knees and pray! I seriously thought I would face an LDS disciplinary council for that spontaneous off-the-wall comment. I didn't, but I have rocked more than a few boats. and, it does point out the extent to which belief is based on faith. to the literalists who point to Genesis and "God created man in his own image" I always suggest that God in the process could have refined homo sapiens over the years and the original creation may have been significantly more endowed with hair; secondly, God can appear to man in any form He chooses: the burning bush, the blinding light to Saul, etc. however, stating beliefs and disbeliefs is fine; trying to convince another whose beliefs or disbeliefs are securely anchored in whatever they believe as truth, is futile. I will accept, without trying to change, anyone's "religious" beliefs as their beliefs; I only ask they extend the same tolerance to me. attila out...
[snip] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be. Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNgZuCj7vNMDa3ztrEQLR7gCg7cqx1bA29pe+fBCb7DcyPundpGsAn39U hhEHvCh4fgriwDbOO/QbTdn3 =gsVI -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Kropotkin said, long ago, something on the order of: "If there were a God, we should assasinate him." That is what I would call a strong atheist statement. I (as a militant atheist) merely say that if you can define your God, I can probably prove he doesn't exist. Unless, of course, your definition is so broad as to have no meaning in the first place. | -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- | Hash: SHA1 | | On Sun, 20 Sep 1998, Jim Choate wrote: | | >Forwarded message: | > | >> From: pjm@spe.com | >> Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 20:13:38 +0200 | >> Subject: atheism (was: RE: Democracy... (fwd)) (fwd) | >> | [snip] | | >No, atheism is the statement that "God could exist, but | doesn't". Whether | >one chooses to hang 'Bhuddism' or 'Wiccan' on is irrelevant. | We aren't | >discussion labels but rather characteristics. Fundamentaly | *ALL* atheism | >states: | > | >While it could happen that way, I don't believe it does. | > | >Which is identical in meaning to: | > | >While it could happen that way, I believe it doesn't. | > | >> Getting back to the strong v. weak distinction, the | weak atheist | >> position that one "does not believe god(s) exist" does not | constitute | >> a belief, a set of beliefs, or a personal philosophy, let alone a | >> religion. The strong atheist position that one "believes god(s) do | >> not exist" is actually making a knowledge claim and so | does constitute | >> a belief. | > | >Try to sell that spin-doctor bullshit to somebody else, and | read a book on | >basic logic. | > | agreed, the strong v. weak atheist argument is _impossible_. | | however, an interesting premise I posited to my 14 year old son | who had gone through his scientific awareness state and | consequently declared himself an "aethist". at the time he was in | a boarding school and we were in conversation with the chief | counselor who happened to be a member of an LDS bishopric: | | kid: yes, an aethist. | | father: so... you "deny" God's existence since their is no | "proof" of His existence. did you | ever consider that in | order to "deny" anything, you must | have defined that | concept? in other words, to deny | God, you must have | determined that I or someone else has | defined God in | order for you to be able to "deny" God? | ... | counselor: is there a difference between belief and faith? | | ... | father: aethism is a concept which is almost impossible to | define as it is a denial that if it | could it doesnt. | it is much easier to defend | "agnosticism" where you | admit you do not believe, or have | faith, because you | lack sufficient scientific proof. | aethism is not | doubting, it is denying, even in the face of proof. | | consider this in terms of both belief | and faith: | | suppose you die, and despite your lack of belief or | faith, you find yourself before the throne of God. | | as your awareness returns, you look up and the image | of God is the image of an orangutan --now what are | you going to do? | | without missing a heartbeat: | | counselor: I think you better get down on your knees and pray! | | I seriously thought I would face an LDS disciplinary council for | that spontaneous off-the-wall comment. I didn't, but I have rocked | more than a few boats. and, it does point out the extent to which | belief is based on faith. to the literalists who point to Genesis | and "God created man in his own image" I always suggest that God | in the process could have refined homo sapiens over the years and | the original creation may have been significantly more endowed | with hair; secondly, God can appear to man in any form He chooses: | the burning bush, the blinding light to Saul, etc. | | however, stating beliefs and disbeliefs is fine; trying | to convince | another whose beliefs or disbeliefs are securely anchored | in whatever | they believe as truth, is futile. I will accept, without trying to | change, anyone's "religious" beliefs as their beliefs; I only ask | they extend the same tolerance to me. | | attila out... | | > | [snip] | | -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- | Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use | Comment: No safety this side of the grave. Never was; never will be. | Charset: noconv | | iQA/AwUBNgZuCj7vNMDa3ztrEQLR7gCg7cqx1bA29pe+fBCb7DcyPundpGsAn39U | hhEHvCh4fgriwDbOO/QbTdn3 | =gsVI | -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- |
attila writes:
agreed, the strong v. weak atheist argument is _impossible_.
I'll try one last time and then let this grossly off-topic thread continue without me. The weak atheist position is a _lack_ of belief. No knowledge claim is made. This position can come from a number of perspectives, one common one being that the concept denoted by the word "god" is incoherent. If a concept is without meaning then it doesn't make sense to claim to believe that it doesn't exist; such a claim would itself be incoherent. The strong atheist position that god(s) do not exist does constitute a knowledge claim. It implies that the holder of the position associates a particular, meaningful concept with the word "god". It doesn't, however, indicate anything about the other beliefs of the atheist in question. There must be some 'net law regarding the effort required to make a point being inversely proportional to the complexity and importance of that point.... Regards, pjm
Jim Choate writes: [ A bunch of gratuitously obnoxious nonsense indicating a lack of reading comprehension skills coupled with no capacity for critical thinking. ] That makes two rude replies in a row in response to polite messages. I'll give anyone the benefit of one bad hair day, but further discussion with you is obviously a waste of time. I do thank you for demonstrating that "transcendence" is not a null concept, however. You are without a doubt a transcendent asshole. I retire from this discussion and yield the floor to you, Mr. Choate. It is only fitting, seeing as you've gone to such trouble to deposit that large pile of fecal matter in the middle of it. Regards, pjm
participants (4)
-
attila -
Jim Choate -
Kurt Buff -
pjm＠spe.com