Richard Dawkins sums up religion

[wickfut]

Perhaps I do....I would need to have all the religious texts ever written to be able to answer the first definition and then I could and practically would be a atheist, theist and agnostic all at the same time considering the differences in those definitions are as infinite as the propositions presented...it is also clearly not a universal, coherent definition being presented...so my initial position that the question is not coherent is validated.

Not really. If you believe in just one of the many gods then you would be a theist. If you disbelieve all of the gods then you're an atheist.

The second, I would have no way to objectively know whether any decisions I make on the validity are a result of such a deities mind control or will...this would require an enormous amount of assumption and is therefore not a coherent universal definition.

Nobody said it was aimed at you. I stated a supernatural being or entity with the ability to. Not that it had to influence you in some way.

The third also requires assumptions which could mean I am agnostic, theist or atheist dependent upon those assumptions...so again, not a coherent proposition.

Therefore as no coherent universal proposition has been made the question(s) assumes to much to be meaningful......I am not an atheist or theist as both would assume too much given the knowledge you have supplied.

What do you believe a god is?

 

[Castiel]

Not really.

Not all possible propositions about a definition of God have been presented, nor do I have knowledge of them..therefore I may either believe in one or many or I may not....therefore I am neither a Theist or Atheist.

Nobody said it was aimed at you. I stated a supernatural being or entity with the ability to. Not that it had to influence you in some way.

You are not asking me the question? Then why would I answer it?

It is still not a coherent universal definition of the term God however, so the answer stands.

What do you believe a god is?

That is a different question....one which requires far more thought and knowledge than I currently have possession of...it also requires an assumption on my part....I could define God as the Universe and be a Theist or I could define God some other way and be an Atheist....effectively I have no idea what or who God is..that would assume too much than I am comfortable with.

 

[MikeTheNative]

I'm astounded that you've not even bothered to read the definition of evolution before denouncing it. If you had offered some evidence, I would have at least bothered to read it before telling you it was crap.

Which church is it that you belong to? Church of England or what?

To be fair, I think that both the Church of England and the Catholic church had said the evolution fits in with the belief of God and don't deny it. I personally don't believe in God but I don't care if other people do, it's up to them. However I do get annoyed at he people who claim evolution isn't real and the earth is only 400 years old etc as they are just wrong. It seems people take the bible too literally when to me it's just a bunch of stories to teach people how to live their lives, plus the killing of a few people.

 

[zenf]

I'm sorry but you don't make any sense, anyone can change their mind if they choose to. Get real mate.

Go on then, choose to change your mind and stop believing in God, if you can...

 

[dirtychinchilla]

To be fair, I think that both the Church of England and the Catholic church had said the evolution fits in with the belief of God and don't deny it. I personally don't believe in God but I don't care if other people do, it's up to them. However I do get annoyed at he people who claim evolution isn't real and the earth is only 400 years old etc as they are just wrong. It seems people take the bible too literally when to me it's just a bunch of stories to teach people how to live their lives, plus the killing of a few people.

Exactly. If he was from one of those churches then theoretically he should hold that view.

Anyway, I await kedge's response.

 

[wickfut]

Not all possible propositions about a definition of God have been presented, nor do I have knowledge of them..therefore I may either believe in one or many or I may not....therefore I am neither a Theist or Atheist.

Going on your current knowledge...

You are not asking me the question? Then why would I answer it?

Are you getting bored of your little game yet?

That is a different question....one which requires far more thought and knowledge than I currently have possession of...it also requires an assumption on my part....I could define God as the Universe and be a Theist or I could define God some other way and be an Atheist....effectively I have no idea what or who God is..that would assume too much than I am comfortable with.

The thread subject is about religion. Everyone else involved in this thread understands the subject matter and can identify with the definitions of words used within. Why do you find it difficult to do the same?

 

[Castiel]

Going on your current knowledge...

On my current knowledge God may or may not exist in some form or another...I simply do not have the knowledge with which to determine the truth value of such a proposition and therefore God (as an undefined concept) may or may not exist.

Are you getting bored of your little game yet?

I'm not paying a game, simply answering your questions....its tedious having to answer the same question reworded over and over though.

The thread subject is about religion. Everyone else involved in this thread understands the subject matter and can identify with the definitions of words used within. Why do you find it difficult to do the same?

I do not to find it difficult...you do. I have given the definition and explanation of what I identify with...it is you that cannot accept it or understand it.

 

[V-Spec]

The difference between us is that you assume a meaningful definition to the term God within the proposition...I do not. Its a subtle, yet fundamental difference.

I don't assume any meaning to the question at all - I dismiss the question as nonsense and reject it, because it is nonsense (to me) therefore I can't hold any positive belief, because there's essentially nothing to believe in.

I'd say the difference is only fundamental to people who like to fap in philosophical funhouses, to ordinary people I don't think there really is any difference.

I can see where you're coming from and the position you take, I just think that you've drastically overstated it to the point where it's a lot more than it actually is, and in reality your position is pretty close to any of the general permutations of atheism.

 

[Jack Bauer]

if you want to use the word evolution then human beings can only evolve from human beings and this is a proven fact. If you want to believe that humans evolved from an ape-like creature over millions of years then that is your choice to believe that, if you believe that the information you observe points to evolution then that is your choice to believe that.

I don't understand your point here. If a human evolved from a human then no evolution took place?

Also on the point of evolution, there are studies that claim to have demonstrated the process in a lab scale, for example,

http://www.newscientist.com/article...olutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html#.UqHabMvuP4M

Can't say that I have took the time to read them as I don't have a lot of interest. I also may be mistaken but I am under the impression that genes can be traced back through species quite clearly showing the family tree of organisms.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you are saying because we didn't personally see it happening in humans we are choosing to believe this?

 

[Castiel]

I don't assume any meaning to the question at all - I dismiss the question as nonsense and reject it, because it is nonsense (to me) therefore I can't hold any positive belief, because there's essentially nothing to believe in.

That you reject the proposition means that you give it meaning...I neither reject nor accept the proposition. I make no assumption about the proposition at all. If you, like me really think the proposition is meaningless then you could be potentially a theist, an atheist or agnostic depending upon the specificity of the assumptive definition applied to the proposition. You are not an atheist...to be an atheist implies you have rejected the proposition as presented.

To requote Drange from his book Atheism;

"Since the word "God" has many different meanings, it is possible for the sentence "God exists" to express many different propositions. What we need to do is to focus on each proposition separately. … For each different sense of the term "God," there will be theists, atheists, and agnostics relative to that concept of God."

So you could, if you find the proposition "Does God Exist?" meaningless be any number of things relative to the assumptions made in the definition of the term God within it.

I'd say the difference is only fundamental to people who like to fap in philosophical funhouses, to ordinary people I don't think there really is any difference.

That comes across as Ad Hominem.

I can see where you're coming from and the position you take, I just think that you've drastically overstated it to the point where it's a lot more than it actually is, and in reality your position is pretty close to any of the general permutations of atheism.

In reality it is nothing like the general permutations of Atheism I recognise, I logically cannot be all three things at the same time relative to the question...it requires an assumption to made as to the term God in order to answer the question and depending on that assumption my position might be any of the three most commonly defined theological/philosophical positions.

In short, whatever way you wish to approach this, ultimately we define ourselves according to our own understanding....by my understanding I am not an atheist..I do not fit the required aspects inherent in that position, as elmarko agreed when we had a similar discussion. I feel I have answered this as fully and extensively as I am able and now we are simply rehashing the same explanations to reworded questions.

Time to move on to other aspects of the debate.

 

[elmarko]

Again I'd point you to the caveat regarding harm, if people want to believe that good and evil are absolutes and indeed are external actors on behaviour then that's fine for them. I would have a bit more of an issue if those beliefs were then used to determine how the criminal in this example was dealt with - this assumes of course that we can come up with a broad evidence based agreement about how best to deal with criminals.

I don't accept a stance as a matter of fact without evidence but for much of the time I can simply afford to ignore it as it doesn't impinge on me to any degree. If you wish it's apathetic or perhaps it's live and let live - people holding different opinions to you doesn't necessarily harm you even if you don't view them as being supported by evidence.

Thanks for spotting that accidental missing section, normally I specifically mention when objective harm is caused element (I think I did a few posts back) but forgot to in that post.

Always good to add clarity.

 

[D.P.]

Not any atheist I know, even the Apatheists I know, are all knowledgeable enough to know the fundamental difference between what their position and mine, Atheism (like Theism) by definition give s meaning to the term "God Exists" in order to reject or conclude they lack such beliefs..I see no such meaning in the term as the term God has no coherent presented form God may or may not refer to an extant concept, essentially in its most simplistic form, An atheist would say, 'I don't believe God exists'; an agnostic would say, 'I don't know whether or not God exists'; and an ignostic would say, 'I don't know what you mean when you say, "God exists".


...I am not an atheist..it's as simple as that.

No, atheists rejection the theist position because the question on whether God exists doesn't make sense, God is not well defined and so atheists simply don't have a belief in that.

You may be entirely correct from an academic point of view but in relation to common speech and what the millions of atheists around the world understand, you are an atheist just like me.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

To requote Drange from his book Atheism;

"Since the word "God" has many different meanings, it is possible for the sentence "God exists" to express many different propositions. What we need to do is to focus on each proposition separately. … For each different sense of the term "God," there will be theists, atheists, and agnostics relative to that concept of God."

So you could, if you find the proposition "Does God Exist?" meaningless be any number of things relative to the assumptions made in the definition of the term God within it.

This is true and very important. I see many people in this thread declare that God does not exist, but it's implicit in their post that they refer specifically to the concept of a personal God, rather than the broader concept of God.

It's why when criticising what I and others have said, they always do so in the context of Abrahamic religions.

 

[V-Spec]

You may be entirely correct from an academic point of view but in relation to common speech and what the millions of atheists around the world understand, you are an atheist just like me.

This is the way I see the whole thing, it's almost like it's more of an exercise in "fancy thought" which is all well and good, but to ordinary people it seems totally unnecessary and overcomplicated.

 

[Castiel]

No, atheists rejection the theist position because the question on whether God exists doesn't make sense, God is not well defined and so atheists simply don't have a belief in that.

I don't reject the theist position in general. That would require an assumption, one that depending upon the assumption made would fundamentally define the position into which I fall.

You may be entirely correct from an academic point of view but in relation to common speech and what the millions of atheists around the world understand, you are an atheist just like me.

I do not know a single atheist that defines their atheism without reference to the proposition of God. I do not see how you can define atheism without reference to the proposition of God....

For the last time...I am not an atheist...not by any accepted definition of the term..if you wish to invent a definition that fits my position then that simply makes the term atheism as meaningless as the term God.

This is the way I see the whole thing, it's almost like it's more of an exercise in "fancy thought" which is all well and good, but to ordinary people it seems totally unnecessary and overcomplicated.

It's not even complicated, let alone overcomplicated. DP rejects Theism, that is how he defines his Atheism...I am not rejecting Theism...therefore we are not the same, as his definition of his atheism is not compatible with my position.


If you both wish to think of me as an atheist feel free to do so...but be aware that I reject that assumption. That's about as far as this can go I feel.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

This is the way I see the whole thing, it's almost like it's more of an exercise in "fancy thought" which is all well and good, but to ordinary people it seems totally unnecessary and overcomplicated.

Well one should never pitch the debate at the level of the common ignoramus

 

[Castiel]

This is true and very important. I see many people in this thread declare that God does not exist, but it's implicit in the way they talk that they refer specifically to the concept of a personal God, rather than the broader concept of God.

It's why when criticising what I and others have said, they always do so in the context of Abrahamic religions.

Indeed...they are essentially ascribing their own personal definition of a word rather than any accepted definition..which makes the entire position flawed from the outset.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

It's actually one of the things that infuriates me about Dawkins. His arguments are almost always in the Abrahamic context and thus deeply flawed. Although curiously he doesn't even consider himself a hard atheist, so he must be aware of the broader question.

 

[V-Spec]

Well one should never pitch the debate at the level of the common ignoramus

Ah yes, I forgot - all debates on such matters should be restricted only to people with pHDs

Rotten.

 

[Castiel]

Humanist? Just be happy that we're here and make the best of it we can.

I suppose I could be defined as a Humanist, insofar that I support Secularism rather than Fideism as the prefered basis for human society.