Hitler and Stalin

[elliotfc]

It would be helpful, not to mention it being a basic courtesy also, if you stopped putting words in my mouth, so to speak. In particular, I invite you to notice the consistency with which I have qualified "violence" as "conceivable." It would be additionally useful if you applied your grey matter to things, instead of immediately viewing everything as a personal attack and/or as a source of immediately exploitable brownie points.

Why do you think I'm taking anything you say as a personal attack?

That's ludicrous. You have not once yet attacked me personally. And since you're a strong atheist, there's not even a chance that you *could* do that.

You're got some pet assertion which I think is daft. Daft I say! If anything it's me doing the personal attacking, not you. Yes, I grant that you can conceive many sorts of things. That's part of my point too.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Atheistsbelive that faith exsists, we just don't have faith in Gods.

Oh. So an atheist doesn't reject the existence of God, just rejects having faith in the existence of God?

That's interesting. I like it!

Would the guy who wants me to use my brain matter and learn English consider this to be strong, or weak atheism?

-Elliot

 

[rocketdodger]

Fanatic: A person marked or motivated by an extreme, unreasoning enthusiasm, as for a cause.

Are adults who are fanatical about crayons violent?

If they percieve a threat to their crayons, absolutely.

How about fanatics of the defunct TV show Get a Life with Chris Elliott?

I wouldn't trust them alone in a room with the fox executives.

I don't know why I should assume that all fanatics about things will act violently.

Because being a fanatic is contingent upon lack of reason when it comes to following a cause. Without applying reason, every alternative outlook is a percieved threat. How do unreasonable humans respond to threats? The same way all animals do -- attack.

 

[Anacoluthon64]

You're got some pet assertion which I think is daft. Daft I say!

Aah, now I finally get it. You have an opinion that you can neither relinquish nor defend coherently. How droll, me thinking that there's any chance of penetrating obtuseness of that magnitude.

Sorry mate, I don't operate that way. Carry on having fun without me.

'Luthon64

 

[Elind]

So are they atheists or not? On the one hand, "we do not describe ourselves as atheists". On the other hand, "We do not "worship" anything, whether it is "God" or any other unproven pie in the sky entity."

It seems as if this discussion tends toward defining atheist, as if that is in question. I've always thought it simple. No belief in a deity that plays a role in the universe. I could imaging that something in a lab somewhere caused the Big Bang in some experiment, but I wouldn't consider that a deity just for that reason.

Just because someone doesn't appear to follow what we think religious principles should be, doesn't mean we can call them atheist. Only that person is in a position to say so, and I'm of the opinion that Hitler never did, or I'm quite sure it would one of the most common quotes ever mentioned.

And nobody, certainly not me, has ever said that all atheists have to be nice.

 

[brodski]

Oh. So an atheist doesn't reject the existence of God, just rejects having faith in the existence of God?

That's interesting. I like it!

Would the guy who wants me to use my brain matter and learn English consider this to be strong, or weak atheism?

-Elliot

One who states that "I have no faith in god" is an atheist, one who sates that "I have no faith in god AND there is no god" is a strong atheist. A weak atheist would argue that "I have no faith in god, and there is no credible evidence for god outside of faith, therefore I deny the existence of god". For an atheist God comes from faith, as opposed to the religious POV that faith comes from god.

 

[pgwenthold]

Just because someone doesn't appear to follow what we think religious principles should be, doesn't mean we can call them atheist. Only that person is in a position to say so, and I'm of the opinion that Hitler never did, or I'm quite sure it would one of the most common quotes ever mentioned.

See the quote I provided eariler in this thread. Something like, "By fighting the Jew, I am doing the work of Almighty God."

I always love the juxtaposition of Hitler and Einstein. Hitler gets called an atheist, despite the fact that he regularly expressed belief in God. Einstein, otoh, gets called a theist because he used the phrase "God does not throw dice," despite the fact that he CLEARLY and inequivocally states that he does not believe in a personal god.

Any little straw to cling to...

 

[Elind]

Oh. So an atheist doesn't reject the existence of God, just rejects having faith in the existence of God?

That's interesting. I like it!

Would the guy who wants me to use my brain matter and learn English consider this to be strong, or weak atheism?

-Elliot

Isn't there a word for that? Agnostic?

 

[elliotfc]

Aah, now I finally get it. You have an opinion that you can neither relinquish nor defend coherently. How droll, me thinking that there's any chance of penetrating obtuseness of that magnitude.

Sorry mate, I don't operate that way. Carry on having fun without me.

'Luthon64

OK, beats having to hear your daft theory repeated ad naseum. -Elliot

 

[Elind]

Aah, now I finally get it. You have an opinion that you can neither relinquish nor defend coherently. How droll, me thinking that there's any chance of penetrating obtuseness of that magnitude.

Sorry mate, I don't operate that way. Carry on having fun without me.

'Luthon64

Are you another Aussie? Just curious. They are famous here (a very few anyway).

 

[Dr Adequate]

Yes...but umemployed people believe that jobs exist...

Yes...but healthy people believe that diseases exist...

Yes...but single people believe that spouses exist...

Yes...but carefree people believe that cares exist...

Yes...but solvent people believe that debts exist...

Yes...but atheists believe that gods exist...

Wait a second...

Ah, you just realized that your reasoning was false. Congratulations, have a lollipop.

The last term should, of course, have been "Yes ... but atheists believe that beliefs in deities exist", as you would have discovered for yourself had you followed your own schema conscienciously.

Yes, atheists believe that beliefs in deities exist. However, we have no such beliefs. Just as the healthy man believes that diseases exist, but has no diseases.

 

[Nova Land]

It seems as if this discussion tends toward defining atheist, as if that is in question.

Yes. That's because it is in question. See, for instance, the thread I linked to previously in which RSLancaster and chanileslie debate what the meaning should be. Both are reasonable people, but the two of them were unable to come to agreement.

I've always thought it simple.

So did RSL and chani. So have a lot of people who have argued this out. Unfortunately they still haven't been able to agree on which simple definition to use.

No belief in a deity that plays a role in the universe.

Yes. But that still leaves the question: a lack of belief in god, or disbelief in god? The two are not the same.

Just because someone doesn't appear to follow what we think religious principles should be, doesn't mean we can call them atheist. Only that person is in a position to say so...

Ah. That sounds as if you're saying the person has to consider themself an atheist to be one. So are you of the opinion that, even though the Church of the Creator folks do not believe in any god, and consider god a "pie in the sky" notion, that they are not atheists? Or have I misunderstood you?

 

[Nova Land]

There is a similar problem with the word feminism as there is with the word atheism. So many people have sneered at and made fun of feminists that many young women have been heard to say I am not a feminist, but... and then go on to describe beliefs which sound remarkably like feminism. But they have the image that to be a feminist means one is a humorless man-hating extremist -- and by that definition, they know they are not feminists, so they reject the label.

Similarly, some people (especially on the right) may associate atheism with extreme left-wing beliefs. Hence, even though they do not believe in a god, they do not want to be lumped in with atheists. That may be what is at play with the World Church of the Creator folks. Despite the fact that they do not call themselves atheists, they sound like atheists to me.

One reason I bring them up, apart from illustrating a point I was making earlier, is that their beliefs are remarkably similar to Hitler's. They, like Hitler, reject a lot of what they see in religion as superstition, and "worship" what they believe is reality. They have a rather warped view of what reality is -- but so do many other atheists. I know atheists (or people who describe themselves as atheists, and do not believe in a god) who believe in pyramid power, ghosts, near-death experiences, homeopathy, and numerous other things which I find in conflict with my perception of reality. Holding rational beliefs is not a requirement for being an atheist.

So if the World Church of the Creator folks are atheists (even though they prefer not to call themselves by that label), then it is quite possible Hitler was an atheist as well. If the Church of the Creator folks are not atheists, then Hitler almost certainly wasn't, either -- but a lot of other people (whom some on this forum are trying to claim as atheists) will have to be excluded as well.

 

[SirPhilip]

They have a rather warped view of what reality is -- but so do many other atheists. I know atheists (or people who describe themselves as atheists, and do not believe in a god) who believe in pyramid power, ghosts, near-death experiences...

Near death experiences, surely those aren't woo? They can be reproduced just by driving on I-95 during rush hour.

 

[Nova Land]

Near death experiences, surely those aren't woo? They can be reproduced just by driving on I-95 during rush hour.

Right you are! I was typing a bit quickly so didn't express that as clearly as I perhaps could have. The thing which one atheist friend believed, and tried to convince me of on a number of occasions, was that the out-of-body experience people often report having during a near-death experience was not simply a feeling that one had travelled outside one's body but an actual astral journey.

 

[elliotfc]

Ah, you just realized that your reasoning was false. Congratulations, have a lollipop.

The last term should, of course, have been "Yes ... but atheists believe that beliefs in deities exist", as you would have discovered for yourself had you followed your own schema conscienciously.

Yes, atheists believe that beliefs in deities exist. However, we have no such beliefs. Just as the healthy man believes that diseases exist, but has no diseases.

This is an excellent point, hadn't thought of it this way before.

I do know that many atheists say that God does not exist, but that is different from saying one has no belief in the existence of God.

Maybe that goes back to strong/weak atheism. In fact, I think that some atheists may refer to your last paragraph as agnosticism.

Edit to add...my dictionary says that an atheist is one who denies or disbelieves in the existence of God. So you have two species right there.

I won't completely back off from what I asserted earlier. *THE EXISTENCE OF GOD*. That's the issue. Whether you deny it, or disbelieve it. It's still a tricky issue. It's still different from the concept of being sick. Being sick is a real thing that we experience. Personally, if I did deny, or did disbelieve, in the existence of God, I would be averse to defining myself *contingent* to the existence of God. I'd probably go with agnostic. But that's just me.

-Elliot

 

[Trantor]

This is an excellent point, hadn't thought of it this way before.

I do know that many atheists say that God does not exist, but that is different from saying one has no belief in the existence of God.

Maybe that goes back to strong/weak atheism. In fact, I think that some atheists may refer to your last paragraph as agnosticism.

Edit to add...my dictionary says that an atheist is one who denies or disbelieves in the existence of God. So you have two species right there.

I won't completely back off from what I asserted earlier. *THE EXISTENCE OF GOD*. That's the issue. Whether you deny it, or disbelieve it. It's still a tricky issue. It's still different from the concept of being sick. Being sick is a real thing that we experience. Personally, if I did deny, or did disbelieve, in the existence of God, I would be averse to defining myself *contingent* to the existence of God. I'd probably go with agnostic. But that's just me.

-Elliot

Reading thru these definitions of Strong Atheist, Weak Atheist, and Agnostic, has me thinking about my own beliefs. I generally don't give that much thought. My own beliefs go something like this: I accept all that science has confirmed, all the way back to the Big Bang. I believe the evidence shows that the Universe began with the Big Bang. I however, don't know what actually made the Big Bang happen, or know what set things in motion before that time. Is it possible that the Big Bang and the creation of our Universe has a higher purpose that we at our level of understanding don't comprehend? My answer is - Maybe. Is everything that has taken place, some kind of plan by a higher form of intelligence? I don't know, there is no evidence one way or another, so again I say - Maybe. If God is out there, HE/She/It set things in motion and doesn't seem to be concerned with personal management.

I would generally classify myself an Agnostic.

 

[Elind]

Ah. That sounds as if you're saying the person has to consider themself an atheist to be one. So are you of the opinion that, even though the Church of the Creator folks do not believe in any god, and consider god a "pie in the sky" notion, that they are not atheists? Or have I misunderstood you?

Yes, that is what I happen to think. Others can tie themselves in knots over it if they wish; I don't.

As to the "Church of Creator" folks, it sounds to me that they are atheists if that is what they say. Just because a woowoo group finds comfort in surrounding themselves with ritual that resembles religion, doesn't mean they can't be atheists. I never said ALL atheists had to be really smart, or sane for that matter.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Personally, if I did deny, or did disbelieve, in the existence of God, I would be averse to defining myself *contingent* to the existence of God.

But so am I averse to this, of course. Rather, I define my religious beliefs with reference to the fact that I have no belief in God..

If I did deny, or did disbelieve, in the existence of God ... I'd probably go with agnostic.

It would seem strange to deny the existence of God and then claim to be agnostic rather than atheist.

I do know that many atheists say that God does not exist, but that is different from saying one has no belief in the existence of God.

Maybe that goes back to strong/weak atheism. In fact, I think that some atheists may refer to your last paragraph as agnosticism.

Edit to add...my dictionary says that an atheist is one who denies or disbelieves in the existence of God. So you have two species right there.

Well, there is an epistemological question here as well as a theological one.

I take a strong empirical line on epistemology. For me, the following statements are equivalent:

* I have looked under my bed for evidence of tigers, and I have no evidence that there are tigers under my bed..
* I have looked under my bed for evidence of tigers, and I have evidence that there are no tigers under my bed.
* I do not believe that there are tigers under my bed.
* I believe that there are no tigers under my bed.
* I deny that there are tigers under my bed.
* There are no tigers under my bed.

When I say "equivalent", I mean that each means no more and no less than the other. Although I have arranged them in such an order that they sound more and more definite, a man who legtimately and with good cause can make the first claim can make the last, and vice versa : because, from an empiricist viewpoint, there can be no stronger statement supporting the last statement than the first.

In particular, the statements you offer seem to present a distinction without a difference. When you write "Many atheists say that God does not exist, but that is different from saying one has no belief in the existence of God" --- then I disagree. If I would say that I have no belief in the existence of tigers under my bed, then I would say that tigers under my bed don't exist, and vice versa: there are no circumstances under which I would affirm the one but not the other.

In the same way, you make a distinction between those who "deny" and those who "disbelieve" in the existence of God. Well, if I disbelieve in the tigers under my bed, then, if I am truthful, I will also deny that there are tigers under my bed, and vice versa.

As for the word "agnostic", I would reserve the word for those who see arguments on both sides and feel unable to resolve the conundrum. Here's an example :

"I may say that the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God; but whether this is an argument of real value, I have never been able to decide. I am aware that if we admit a first cause, the mind still craves to know whence it came, and how it arose. Nor can I overlook the difficulty from the immense amount of suffering through the world. I am, also, induced to defer to a certain extent to the judgment of the many able men who have fully believed in God; but here again I see how poor an argument this is. The safest conclusion seems to me that the whole subject is beyond the scope of man's intellect; but man can do his duty."

This is honest agnosticism. By contrast, the man who merely says "I have no evidence for God, but he might conceivably exist, therefore I am an agnostic," either has confused ideas about epistemology or is a moral coward.

 

[elliotfc]

But so am I averse to this, of course. Rather, I define my religious beliefs with reference to the fact that I have no belief in God..

Ummm...this is tricky because this is so hypothetical...if I were something like an atheist/agnostic, I don't think I could say this. Belief in God? Which God? A God with all the toppings? Can any extant perception of God possibly be equivalent to the reality of God, or a God?

What I would do is say several, or dozens of, pointed statements like...if God existed he wouldn't become a human being, or couldn't because that's absolutely insensible, so I would reject all Gods who would do such a thing.

But here I'm merely combatting with theories of God in circulation. What about ones that haven't been thought up yet? What about ideas of God absent of what we would equate to personality?

Good post, but I go eat ice cream now and come back later.

-Elliot