₦airaland Forum

Off-topic: Please allow me to plead with my very dear friend.

---

[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=173967.msg2831231#msg2831231 date=1221956936]@Chrisbenogor,

I agree with you on one thing - your whole arguement really sucks! I'm really beginning to wonder when we shall actually see men with the intelligence enough to look within themselves and admit that their own premises are notoriously mischievious beyond belief!

Am I angry? No. Disappointed? Yes, and I would ask you to excuse me to point out certain things as to why I most often take a reserved seat and watch the irrational rants of people who assume that theists are non-thinking people.

You talk about "the evidence of this is in the 30,000 or so different sects in Christianity alone" as if to say that you are largely unware that even atheists are so confused as to the basic definition of what atheism truly is! They have no consensus about the basic definition of that word, and are as divided over the issue as ever for eons. Yet, you have a problem with 30,000 sects in Christianity. Even when you look closely between men who argue under the cloak of "science", you will find that the drama extends to atheists who are authorities in evolutionary biology. Both Richard Dawkins and late Stephen J. Gould were atheists, and yet they were ever so in disagreement that one would wonder what happened to their rationality.

This idea of berating people on their beliefs simply because you are not looking closely at your own camp is amusing. I have only entered a discussion thereto with dear huxley in a very calm manner to lead him to what he has been missing all along. The goal of reason and rational thought is not to attack people's convictions! I started out in that discussion on one premise - to define atheism proper, noting well that so far my references have been drawn mostly from atheistic sources. The remarkable thing is that between all those who have been quoted, they do not agree as to what the term means - and they do not even need the help of theists to project their disagreement!

Dear Chrisbenogor, it is a small world. If you are disturbed about such issues, first clean up your camp and salute your adulators before trying to demonstrate such irrationality in a public forum. The honest question you should be asking yourself here is whether the very things you pretend not to have noticed among atheists only exists among theists. That we don't talk so very much about them as you guys are wont to noise abroad does not mean that some of us have no inkling about them. Ask, and I would very gladly point them out to you. If otherwise, no worries - I have never been disturbed about the irrationality of polarized thinking among atheists.

Best wishes.[/quote]Okay, Saasha, I apologise - I have done so several times to Chrisbenogor. I can't deny the fact since you highlighted them in your IM as above - my irrational rants were uncalled for. I should have been more reasonable. I admit. Please Sash babe, don't keep holding vex for me nah. .  I have come online to appease you publicly by apologising to him. Can I call you now?

Hehe. . 

I dey actually think of grammar like this one about Naturalism:

[list][list]Philosophical naturalism has been described in various ways. In its broadest and strongest sense, naturalism is the metaphysical position that "nature is all there is and all basic truths are truths of nature." This is generally referred to as metaphysical or ontological naturalism. Another basic form, called methodological naturalism, is the epistemology and methodological principle which forms the foundation for the scientific method. It requires that scientific hypotheses are explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events ^{(highlights all mine)}

source: I tif am from Wikipedia[/list][/list]

Make I post others?



Edited:

On Rationalism:

[list][list]In epistemology and in its broadest sense, rationalism is "any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification" (Lacey 286). In more technical terms it is a method or a theory "in which the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive" (Bourke 263).

source: again from Wikipedia[/list][/list]

simmy:
I am neither for nor against Chris or Benny but until i have definite proof that theyr e fakes i ll be careful what i say about them.

This is something which we all as Christians will do well to take to heart.

Lol. . @Backslider,

Actually, that was not the point in my initial rejoinder. While cayon asked about women wearing pants and wanted to know if that was a sin, I was wondering about how that relates to Deuteronomy 22:5.
Depending on the context, the word "pants" could mean trousers (North-American English) or the underwears we're not supposed to expose to public view (British English). I thought it may help if matters like this are clarified.

@Nimshi,

Nimshi:
Sister Pilgrim.1, no be Sunday for una side? Una no dey go Church? Abi una don return?

Abeg, make una find Church enter for Sunday o. Di one wehn I like, Ed Young, e don enter; nice blue T-shirt, pretty jeans, white sneakers, plus body wey dey kampe; for over 50, na God blessing. Creflo Dollar just finish. For Sunday, na so we dey enjoy.

God bless you.

Bo, I no go lie - na office I dey sidon this morning because na ma shift. So quiet and boring - but wetin I go do? I work small, attend to clients. . . when dem no dey and I get small break, I visit the forum and yan opata. Meanwhile, I sidon here dey listen to one of my favourite pastors online - Charles ('Chuck') R. Swindoll.

Na evening I go attend service after my shift for office.

Bless you plenty.

@Chrisbenogor,

Chrisbenogor:
@pilgrim
Its ok, but where would are the atheists supposed to be? The last question of the post, because here is supposed to be for people sharing their beliefs in God or higher powers. You have any ideas

First, I again apologise for the tone of my initial rejoinder: I didn't intend to be read as attacking anyone, especially you.

However, I share your concerns; but even though I toyed with that same question a while back, I felt that possibly the only motherboard that such discussions could be held would be the religious section. My reasons are quite too weak to make sense at this level, but here's why I felt that way:

(1) to share one's faith in higher powers is not constrained to discussions about religion alone. Many people believe that man's intellect and scientific ability could be subscribed as "higher powers" (I actually have seen this cliche used among bloggers in atheist and skeptic websites).

(2) since the religious section is where people are most likely to feel the texture on discussions and debates about theism and atheism, it may be most appropriate to find atheistic threads here as well. It is very difficult for the [b]a[/b]theist to discuss his [b]a[/b]theism without reference to theism or belief in God, deities and the supernatural: they often dovetail somewhere along the lines. So where other than here to have such views expressed?

(3) in my view, atheism and rationalism are not strictly issues about non-belief in God. I'm sure many who are inclined thereto have matters that cut across politics, philosophy, science, etc. Perhaps, these too can be expressed in the various sections accordingly.

On the whole, as I said, my reasons are far too weak at this point to be meaningful - but there they are.

Cheers.

Nimshi:
Mr. mazaje: I just read your post #2, for where you bin write:

My bros, hmnnn, no be so o.

Abeg, Nimshi. . . help me yan am. I no wan talk too much, because small time now, everybody go tink sey me I too bias!

Cayon:
Women wear pants (Pertaineth unto men) Is it a sin?

How does it relate to Deut. 22:5?

@Chrisbenogor,

Chrisbenogor:
@ pilgrim
I know you have told me you come with a bias, and I am sure we have talked about what I believe here on nairaland. The fact that the reply came from you is why I will take this as a personal attack.

We all have our personal biases, and let's not pretend that is a term uniquely applicable to only me. The fact that I was willing to not pretend about it as well as to explain what I meant by my bias should not be taken as a front for attacking people. If you read my reposte as a personal attack, I apologise upfront; but I'll show you why you really did not seek balance in the OP.

Chrisbenogor:
This is what I tried to point out in my post and if fielding me with the atheist so you can practice you new found subtle ways of literal kung fu.

Lol, Chrisbenogor. . . I don't practise any such.

Chrisbenogor:
I am not defending the total post because I believe I might made mistakes which I will gladly admit to, one of which would be that maybe I did not ask enough questions of the atheists but that is because I am a bit short handed as to the flaws in the scientific theories and would not say what I am not sure about.

We all make mistakes - and I also pointed out in my rejoinders to others that what I really find amazing is the hypocrisy of so many of "us" to point accusing fingers at others on issues which are so very glaring within the camp we seem to ignore.

Chrisbenogor:
The very first lines of my post said that one cannot prove either way. Am I angry? No. But I am flipping disappointed, I am not in anybody's camp if you want me to state it that.

Oh, I'm sorry if you read me anywhere stating that you actually belong to a camp. Neutrality is a middle ground that is doubly difficult to defend. All the same, calm down - we both are disappointed as the case may be, and I highlighted the reason why.

Chrisbenogor:
Yes I have loads of logs in my eyes that I have to remove and I take full responsibility for it! You happy now, I said that the 30000 sects were because of the different interpretations of the bible, and I am not unaware of the atheist camp but I have not been fully one before and cannot go ranting about it.

Chris, I am not forcing you into a position any which way. Even though atheism has been discussed in so many threads, I was not inclined to enter into such a discussion until only recently because it was very alarming to read many people misrepresenting the real issues at the core of such discourses. Just in the same way that people are bound to disagree over interpretations of the Bible, it is evident that atheists themselves have issues of interpretation on issues they hold "sacred". An example is one on the definition of the term atheism itself. Not many people may regard that as of any import; but as I have been trying to make huxley see in another thread, failing to have a grasp of the true meaning of that word is why some have erroneously assumed that children are also atheists! What field of human enquiry has there not been problems of interpretations? We all have them; but often is the case that not so many people point this out as evident even among atheists - but the first and (seemingly) only reference that is often made is about Christians.

Chrisbenogor:
Its ok to defend your position if you want to, but I really expected better from you.

Again, I'm sorry to have disappointed you; but you didn't handle issues properly as one who should have known better. I'm not being sarcastic here, but I think it is just about time that we leave behind the deliberate misrepresentation of issues that have been making the rounds. Not as if the whole body of your OP was insensitive - and I pointed out to to mazaje that it was good you highlighted the fact that you didn't think "the idea of threads based on faith being hijacked by atheists is a good idea".

Chrisbenogor:
Anyway have a great day.

Best wishes.

@bawomolo,

bawomolo:
what atheist division, is there a standard atheist doctrine like say the catholic doctrine. atheism isn't standardized and has always been based on freedom of choice.

Rubbish. Atheists themselves are not so sure how to define atheism, and your frantic objection is boring me already and indicates you either don't know or are too concerned not to notice.

bawomolo:
is a disagreement between peter higgs and dawkins a sign of atheist division. why do you always go back to richard dawkins as if he is some holy father of atheism?

I reference Dawkins often because his rants are often the same things that many uninformed rationalists like to peddle on the forum - it does not mean that I'm unaware of other atheists.

bawomolo:
hawkins deals with theoretical physics so how u place him in the field of evolutionary biology is a little perplexing here.

My dear bawomolo. . I haven't even mentioned [b]H[/b]awkins. . . where did you read me on that?

bawomolo:
great ideas have been spurred through disagreement, the AC vs DC current war is an example. i don't know how u expect two atheists to have their views perfectly aligned. the atheist movement is driven by individualism and there is no rule that atheist have to agree.

Why this glib justification for atheists division? My dear, the division between Dawkins and Gould are not passive matters on intellectual ideas about evolutionary biology. Please find out what rationale Dawkins was demonstrating in his brash attitude - was that "science"?

@mazaje,

mazaje:
athiest and rationalist have never claimed to posses the ONLY truth, only thiest do, especially christains and moslems.

Abeg go sidon! The one thing that amazesme is the sheer hypocrisy of most atheists and rationalists. Who have been hooting about knowing "all truth" in naturalistic terms only? Theists?

mazaje:
athiest have the right to argue with each other, christains and moslems don't because they claim the recieve inspiration from the same source(their god). . . .

Phew! Make I just go it easy with you - just because I like you! Okay, smart up:

(a) many atheists are largely unware that when accusing theists of disagreements and divisions, they themselves are as widely divided among themselves - even on the basic of all questions: the definition of atheism! If they are not even in agreement on that, tell me if that is not more serious than this glib "atheists have a right to argue with each other"! It is even remarkable that you admit the arguement, and that is something that you guys shouldcarefully observe when pointing accusing fingers on 30,000 sects within Christianity.

(b) You make a bigger mistake of assuming that Christians claim to be worshipping the same God as Muslims. Please wake up and read most of the threads between Christians and Muslim debates on that very issue. Many people are easily fooled to assume that Christians and Muslims make a claim of worship to the same deity; but only recently did one of the muslim debaters intone that there is nothing in common between the Quran and the Bible.

mazaje:
athiest and rationalist have never claimed to have all recieved inspiration from the same source.

They don't even claim to receive any inspiration, so what's the question?

mazaje:
. . . . the 30,000 sects in christainity who are alwasy in disagreement and fighting with each other does'nt look like a bunch of people that believe in the same thing, you can believe in the same thing and yet be so divided, the only time christian come together is when you tell them that there is no god else they are always at each others throat.

This is a remarkable thing to observe. How you can justify the deep seated division between atheists themselves is beyond me - are you really aware of the real world or just simply guessing?

mazaje:
. . . the inhouse battle is now getting out of hand in niaja.

Sad - and sadder yet that you guys have sometimes shown very little rationale in that regard. I'm glad for your sake that Chrisbenogor already said:

Chrisbenogor:
Personally, I don't think the idea of threads based on faith being hijacked by atheists is a good idea,

. . . and we should have expected a better attitude from you guys. Not that it even matters to me personally, because as may be observed, I often refrain from entering a debate where irrational rants are being traded. How many times have I stated already that not all such displays are rational?

mazaje:
. . . christains are the ones who need to be asked what happend to their rationality since they all claim to believe in the same source but the differences can not be more glaring. . .

Christians are not the ones going about with tags of "rationalists" - you name the tag on yourselves, you live up to that word. To pretend that your problem is always about the beliefs of others does not make you a more rational person.

Anyway, enjoy.

huxley:
I am surprise why you would casually dismiss Smith's treatment of this subject. He was one of the foremost authors on this subject in recent times and his treatment is cited amongst many scholars as actually being the
breakthrough (for non professional philosophers) the subject need for sometime.

Shall I re-introduce Kai Nielsen? He's adjunct professor of philosophy at Concordia University; and professor emeritus of philosophy at the University of Calgary. His specialization is in metaphilosophy, ethics, and social and political philosophy. Prof Nielsen has concrete written works on philosophy of religion, and is a leading advocate of contemporary, atheist philosophy with 22 books and 415 articles to his credit. As a past president of the Canadian Philosophical Association, Nielsen is also one of the founding members of the Canadian Journal of Philosophy. (excepts from etymology of Atheism).

Now, when a man of Kai's calibre counters the ideologies of George Smith, we had better pay close attention. Smith's arguements are too weak, and one doesn't have to travel far before seeing that he cannot make a Jain an atheist, even though the latter does not believe in a supreme craetor. For Smith to try to play word-games and emblazon the title of atheist on children is sadly an atrophied arguement - Ernest Nagel and Kai Nielsen show us why.

huxley:
Other authors like Antony Flew, Bertrand Russell were found to be too technical and did not make as big an impact as Smith. Admittedly, the arguments have gotten more sophisticated since Smith published in the 70s.

Unfortunately, Anthony Flew no longer counts as an atheist. Bertrand Russell hardly crystalized his philosophical leanings on atheism, and his was just an example of how fiesty rants against theism is counter productive to a theist. An honestly forthright thinker, no doubt, admired for his pungent wisecracks. . . but alas! we see he didn't quite scale to the ranks of Smith et al.

huxley:
Imagine if we were to coin a new word to mean denial of god's existence or lack of belief in the existence of god - let's called it delackism. I submit that we can legitimately do this, after all, that is how language has evolved. (Don't be too hang up of the etymology of the word "atheist"

Okay. . . I follow your trend. . .

huxley:
Now, how would a delackist defend his postion in view of the evidence or lack thereof? Basically, a delackist would find herself confronted with all the issues an atheism has to face today. Issues such as;

1) Can children be described as delackists? If not should we make a separate category for children?
2) Is it possible to have knowledge of something that is beyond our senses? If not, should we create a separate category for this?
3) What if everyone else calls everyone else a delackist?

My dear huxley, look again O. . . what word is highlighted in your delackist term? as far as the idea of "denial" is intoned, sorry. . . we cannot refer to children as such, because they haven't denied anything! As to the other two categories, again we cannot brand them such a sweeping term. Why? Because a huge problem would still have to be scaled in questions of such people as Jains who may not believe in a supreme creator, but are nonetheless adherents of a religion!

huxley:
I trust you will see the problem that many moderm day philosophers face, mostly centred around 2 above and it is an epistemological problem. As we know more about the world, the more we find we need new categories to describe the world. The same applies to delackism, as to atheism.

Okay, but between the two words is still the problem of those who do not fall in either category.

huxley:
George Smith's treatment, while important, was only foundational to the whole subject of atheism. Michael Martin's treatment, which defend both positive and negative atheism, extend the work of Smith much more and also goes into very advance (and mathematical) philosophical exposition of the subject. His basic approach is as follows;

1) Where does the burden of proof lie? He argues it lies with the theist, not the one refuting the claim.

I like this question; but Martin tried to sound intelligent while not making a clear case for his efforts. The burden of proof lies both on the theist as well the atheist. The problem for the atheist is to deny the supernatural, for no other reason than that it threatens his cherished creeds of commitment to non-belief in such phenomena. It is not as if people can deny the supernatural reality of our experiences; but such atheists simply don't have a mathematical model for explaining these phenomena - and what they cannot evidently deny, they ridicule!

huxley:
2) If he is right in saying that the burden of proof is with the theist, then the theist MUST define WHO their god is, otherwise all god-talk is meaningless.

This is like asking Dawkins to define what a meme is - a meaningless carping that no one has observed, but which he uses so assertively to posit arguments against the reality of the supernatural. Who has ever observed a meme, huxley?

huxley:
Thus negative atheism is geared at examining the meaningfulness of god-talk. So he argues whether there is meaning, consistency and logical coherence in an all-good, all-knowing, and all-powerful god.

The basic premise is to examine if there is meaning in theistic core values. These men disappoint me seriously that with all their philosophy, they simply do not understand the basic principle of logic - the so-called "logical contradiction". That is not to say that is a tool of defence that I apply in my theistic belief. However, such philosophers are happy to argue against the perfectly coherent existence of God, while they are themselves happy to dispense with their own contradictions. Sigh!

huxley:
3) In the defence of positive atheism, he extends the work he has already done with negative atheism with arguments from evil,teleological arguments, free will and theodocy.

Maybe we shall get there some day soon. It would really be some discussion when the time arrives!

huxley:
This is quite an impressive work and for my money the best book on the subject, although a lot of it is too technical for me.

I gratefully acknowledge. Look forward to more, and do have a great Sunday.

huxley:
This
think this word itself is at the centre of a great deal of the problems we have in the understand of the theistic/atheistic position)

True - that's why I decided to call our attention to it so we shed ourselves of the misconceptions that many people have been bantering around.

huxley:
What name have you got for "not believing in God"?

There are various expressions of that idea, among which I have often mentioned agnosticism. Not everyone who does not believe in God identify themselves as atheists - there are many people who are actually religious but who are not atheistic. Remember we touched on Jainism, which is an ancient religion in India? Jainism does not believe in an omnipotent supreme being, creator or manager (kartā), but yet it is a religion holding most theistic core elements such as belief in spirit, soul of man, as well as the fact that every day most Jains bow and say their universal prayer, the "Namokara Mantra". Do we then refer to Jainism as atheism? If yes, please tell us what has atheism got to do with the Namokara Mantra?

huxley:
The notion of describing children as some form of atheist predates Eller by many hundred of years. I think his exposition of the subject was simply much stronger, by putting them in a class of their own.

For all of that, the idea that children are atheists is a weak argument, easily debunked by such thinkers as Ernest Nagel et al. That an idea has been promoted in this regard when we know that they are simply cutting corners should not be constantly subscribed to after it has failed down through the ages.

huxley:
Doug Jessef is just one of many atheist who take the positive atheist position. Nicholas Everitt, J L Mackie and Richard Dawkins takes the probabilistic approach, George smith the negative approach, Michael Martin argues for both.

Do not be easily fooled by Richard Dawkins - that is a very poor fellow who does not know what he's talking about on this issue, and many atheists have expressed a huge disappointment on his lack of coherence. Dawkins claims a "probabilistic" atheism, yet he argues for anything but that!

huxley:
In fact, I have got a good book in which about 20 professional atheistic philosopher discuss this subject and the range of approach is as vast as the number of philosophers presented. If you can check it out it is called
"Philosopher without God" http://www.amazon.com/Philosophers-without-Gods-Meditations-Atheism/dp/0195173074/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1221954996&sr=8-1

Someone recommended that book to me; admittedly, I have not had the motivation to get a copy and read it. The one thing I find is that every book that atheist friends have recommended are saying old things in new and interesting ways. Dear huxley, I have penned down notes taken from such readings that even the terms for belief and non-belief perused therefrom run to about 153 at the moment. Where does one start from? However, I do appreciate the kind gesture.

huxley:
You see, calling someone who also believes in a god, albeit a different god from one's god, an atheist (as was the common practice in classical times) only shows how diverse the meaning of the word was, even back then. This is clearly a form of relativistic atheism - for they both believe in god, but different gods.

The case is clear - "they both believe in god" is theism, not [b]a[/b]theism.

huxley:
Was it therefore wrong for Romans to call Christians as atheist, as documented by Polycarp? I don't think so.

It was wrong, for all practical purposes inferring from the context. Angry parties shouting at one another and slinging words incoherently do not establish a statement of fact. If you and I stated shouting at each other with accusations of one being a "thief", it does not mean that it is therefore true that we are thieves! We may both have used the term during angry shout bouts, but that would hardly pass for any literal value. Yes, Polycarp was wrong!

huxley:
At the time, if you did not believe in the local orthodox god of the majority, you would be called atheist.

The case was always an accusation rather than an affirmation.

huxley:
I am sure the Christians also called the Roman pagan followers atheist, although these pagans had their own gods in the form of Zeus, Appolo, Mithras, etc, etc.

Pally, lol. . . I already highlighted that very thing, as well as show what the circumstances were. One cannot argue to make the wrong use of a word the standard idea of that word for all time. An example: in 1279, the word gay simply meant "bundle of twigs bound up"; in 1785, it was an old British school term meaning "a junior who does certain duties for a senior"; and in 1914, the same word had come to mean a "male homosexual". Tell me, dear huxley, which one of these 3 meanings would philosophers argue the most if they wanted to write a book about the word "gay"?

So, it is with the pagan use of the term "atheism" against Christians. The circumstances were pejorative and accusative, rather than affirmative. Atheists today use them term as self-descriptive afformations of their worldview, and they cannot use that term to describe theists in the same regard.

huxley:
Example 2 - Feral Children. What belief system would a feral child have, who was not introduced to the notion of god before he/she was separated from fellow human communities? A great number of these feral child would have lived amongst animals, which clearly (as far as we know) do not cognitively relate to the notion of gods.

Are feral children, on first discovery atheists, or theists?

Since the qualifier there is a "cognitive" factor, may I ask if such a feral child has expressed a conscious denial of theistic claims? I don't mean to be rude by answering a question with another question. But if I must and should answer yours, I maintain that since even Smith et al are unable to make a strong case for their ideology of trying to make atheists out of babies, the point is a mute one - for children (whether feral or not) have not expressed any commitment to theistic or atheistic claims.

huxley:
In my view, these are reasons why such subtly distinctions are required. They do not blur the lines (to use of of your favoured expressions), but they illuminate the subject further.

I'm sorry, they actually obfuscate issues further - because if one were to ask what shade of atheism such children adhere to, they may think us below our station for projecting the various "-isms" upon them where they have not consciously solicited thereof (whether 'positive atheism, negative atheism, implicit atheism, explicit atheism, natural atheism, personal atheism, probabilistic atheism, relativistic atheism')

huxley:
It would really be interesting to see what you think the theistic position of feral children are.

The Bible holds babies as innocent rather than consciously theistic. What this means is that they are not consciously developed to the age of reason and accountability to apply themselves to such questions, and here is a verse that underscores this point:

"Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey,
and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between
good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it,
and they shall possess it." [Deut. 1:39]

The question of "cognition" on such matters of theism and atheism is vital, and it is one which such thinkers as Smith had tried to evade in order to excuse in the idea that all children are atheists. What they were trying to do is to force their idea upon children by first noting their "cognition" while yet ignoring the fact that children have not denied theistic claims by a conscious act.

huxley:
So what do you call people who do NOT belief in god? They are clearly NOT theist. So what are they?

Excuse me? Have all children told YOU that they do not believe in God? If they have not done so, why fforce that title upon them?

Now, I noted that there are many people who do not believe in God but who do not describe themselves as atheists. I mentioned particularly Thomas Huxley who used the term "agnostic" rather than atheist. What you are trying to do is make atheists out of everyone by ignoring their right to identify for themselves that they do not necessary take the title of atheists for themselves! This is what even atheists at EvilBible.com have tagged "Stupid Argument #1" and a "commonly repeated error" to assume that everyone who does not believe in God is therefore an atheist! How narrow is that?

huxley:
Now, what is in the definition?

Lack belief in god (does not belief in the existence of god, or no belief in god) is the postion of the weak (negative atheism).
No-god belief (denial of god existence, or say god does NOT exist) is the position of the strong (positive atheist)

My dear, this effort to temper this definition into a maliable piece is unnecessary - espcially because you only buttressing my point! How? Look carefully again at the red-highlighted words in your quote: "denial. . existence" (or, "does not. . . existence". Whether weak or strong atheism, have you not just stated the very same thing I stated as the core underlying principle of atheism - the denial of the existence of God?!? Remember what two words (denial and existence) I stated earlier that you will find in whatever idea of atheism one holds? Here again:[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=171391.msg2822479#msg2822479 date=1221784534]What qualifies as atheism is the commitment to the denial of the existence of God and the supernatural. However one looks at it, two things often stand out: "denial" and "existence" - these are the very core elements in the atheistic belief system, because the core values of atheism rest properly on the denial of the existence of God.[/quote]Dear huxley, what you had just done is simply confirm the very same thing I stated earlier. Do you want to try again to redefine it for us and see if you can actually bleach those two words from the fact?

huxley:
(I can open up a different argument about our use of the word "belief", I shall leave that for another time.

It would be most welcome - as if atheists themselves have not used that very term most often in quite a dilemma? All the same, I would oblige you if that's where you would like to advance it to - but be fully aware that atheists have not been immuned from applying that world to their worldview.

@huxley,

I carefully perused your reposte and while appreciating a few added insight in yours this time around, I would like to point out a few other weak strands in yours.

huxley:
Having looked at the various definition of atheism used by various atheism themselves and their critics, I thought it would be prudent to take a step back and look at how far we have come.

Later, I'll delineate them summarily for us.

huxley:
Basically, I think the atheism "community" is not a monochromatic camp, with people supporting and espousing slightly different views - positive atheism, negative atheism, implicit atheism, explicit atheism, natural atheism, personal atheism, probabilistic atheism, relativistic atheism etc, etc.

Why are all these diverse but slight different adjectives needed for the word. I think this is partly motivated by renewed interest in taking a more philosophical approach to religion, belief, and non-belief.

I observe actually that discussions about the theistic worldview have been most philosophical from its earliest roots. The "more philosophical approach" is not a recent event.

huxley:
I used the expression "philosophical atheism" earlier and I noticed you totally misunderstood what it means. It basically means the application of the tools of philosophy to the subject of atheism. It is not the same as the philosophy of atheism, and I agree with George Smith on this. A few example might be in order;

Philosophy of Science is NOT the same as philosophical science
Philosophy of Literature is NOT the same as philophical literature
Philosophy of atheism is NOT the same as philosophical atheism.

I don't think I confused the terms, and indeed I knew already the difference between the examples you highlighted. What is remarkable here is that people who are struggling to define what they mean are still making a grave mistake to their own disfavour. "Philosophical atheism" is not the application of tools of philosophy to atheism; because one would be asking who's applying the tool to atheism. Actually, it should rather be the categorization of atheism based on philosophical factors - the difference between the two is simple: (a) applying the tools of philosophy to a[/b]theism suggests that [b]a[/b]theism is being questioned; whereas, (b) categorizing atheism on the basis of philosophical factors is atheism derived from philosophy.

Even when you want to agree with George Smith, I cannot deny you that prerogative. However, I would not be so inclined if I were you, because the conclusion that Smith draws is that "a negative position can [b]never serve as a satisfactory foundation for a philosophical system" - which it may serve the philosophical atheist to note well.

huxley:
Philosophical Atheism (the word "Philosophical" is used as an adjective in this respect) is synonymous with "thinking" or "thoughtful" atheism. Basically, atheism arrived at after having reflected of the arguments for and against the propositions of beliefs and existence of god.

It would then have nothing differing from other forms of atheism - are they not all claiming to have arrived at that very position after having reflected on the arguments both ways?

huxley:
Philosophical atheism can be contrasted with what David Eller and George Smith called natural atheism - A natural atheist is someone who lacks knowledge or exposure to the idea of god. And I agree that children who have not been schooled in theism, are atheist of the natural kind.

While such a definition may be idealistically convenient for such men, the problem is that atheism is a position consciously arrived at. Since children do not make such a conscious denial of theistic claims as do atheists themselves, it is futile for any atheist to try and label children as such. Even David Eller, George Smith and d'Holbach would have to give us one such example of where a child - any child - was ever known to have exercised a conscious denial of theistic claims (afterall, did Smith not argue that such a child would have "the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved" - has Smith ever given us such an example anywhere?).

huxley:
Example 1 - I have a four and a half years old son who has not been schooled in the notion of god (except on the odd ocassion that his mum takes him to church). He uses the word "god" only as an expletive, which he picked up from nursery (as in, "Oooooh, my god".

Now what do you think my son is, with respect to beliefs in god? He knows about the existence of many thinks at his age - the sun, planets, animals, cars, daddy, mummy. He even knows that babies come from mother's tommy. So at his age he is capable of understand many concepts, but god, as a concept to him is meaningless.

Dear sir, your son has not qualified himself as an atheist - in as much as he has not consciously denied theistic claims. Your son has not rationalized issues as an atheist; your son has no clue what "philosophical atheism" is all about; and your son most likely will sit on a hard bench begging not to be labelled for claims he has not stated either.

@Chrisbenogor,

I agree with you on one thing - your whole arguement really sucks! I'm really beginning to wonder when we shall actually see men with the intelligence enough to look within themselves and admit that their own premises are notoriously mischievious beyond belief!

Am I angry? No. Disappointed? Yes, and I would ask you to excuse me to point out certain things as to why I most often take a reserved seat and watch the irrational rants of people who assume that theists are non-thinking people.

You talk about "the evidence of this is in the 30,000 or so different sects in Christianity alone" as if to say that you are largely unware that even atheists are so confused as to the basic definition of what atheism truly is! They have no consensus about the basic definition of that word, and are as divided over the issue as ever for eons. Yet, you have a problem with 30,000 sects in Christianity. Even when you look closely between men who argue under the cloak of "science", you will find that the drama extends to atheists who are authorities in evolutionary biology. Both Richard Dawkins and late Stephen J. Gould were atheists, and yet they were ever so in disagreement that one would wonder what happened to their rationality.

This idea of berating people on their beliefs simply because you are not looking closely at your own camp is amusing. I have only entered a discussion thereto with dear huxley in a very calm manner to lead him to what he has been missing all along. The goal of reason and rational thought is not to attack people's convictions! I started out in that discussion on one premise - to define atheism proper, noting well that so far my references have been drawn mostly from atheistic sources. The remarkable thing is that between all those who have been quoted, they do not agree as to what the term means - and they do not even need the help of theists to project their disagreement!

Dear Chrisbenogor, it is a small world. If you are disturbed about such issues, first clean up your camp and salute your adulators before trying to demonstrate such irrationality in a public forum. The honest question you should be asking yourself here is whether the very things you pretend not to have noticed among atheists only exists among theists. That we don't talk so very much about them as you guys are wont to noise abroad does not mean that some of us have no inkling about them. Ask, and I would very gladly point them out to you. If otherwise, no worries - I have never been disturbed about the irrationality of polarized thinking among atheists.

Best wishes.

Baxilexi:
also, easter was a day set aside but the jews in respect to a god called eastern, it was a coincidence that Jsesus died on the same day.

@Baxilexi,

I don't mean to burst your bubble, but which god is called "eastern"? Can we get some references?

@manmustwac,

manmustwac:
Cayon its a very good excuse to partyyyy. In nigeria we celebrate our independance which is October 1st every year but theres nothing to celebrate as the country is deteriorating everyday.

The condition of beloved Nigeria should not dampen the celebration. Life is truly worth celebrating - when that day comes, take a few moments to celebrate. It's worth the joy of being counted as a Nigeria anywhere on the face of planet earth!

@ayinba1,

ayinba1:
Pilgrim,

I used to encounter a lot of people telling me (like you) how they converted to Xtianity from Islam. And they said it with pride (again like you since you always mention it ). Then one day, a learned person told me to look at it from the angle of someone losing his job and going about flaunting it. Since then, I've had less people tell me that because I tell them, how I see it now.

Lol, I no fit laugh finish. You would notice that I've avoided being drawn into the usual amusements of Muslims trying to enter a fruitless, roundabout and slippery arguments they often delight in. But perhaps davidylan's analogy is a fitting anecdote for your quote above. Besides, believing in Jesus Christ is not a "job" - and leaving Islam is not equatble to losing one's "job". Whoever gave you that analogy is a piece of a comic.

ayinba1:
I understand that you have chosen to go a certain path, but that does not make you an expert on Islam,

Hehe. . where have I ever tried to pass myself off as an expert on Islam? Please check well, maybe you read the wrong username!

ayinba1:
( I don't know what you did as a muslim, but you cannot claim perfection, then or even now).

Did you read me anywhere making such a claim?

ayinba1:
Your experiences can only be used as a yardstick on yourself and no one else.

Thank you - I have never confused my testimony for the experiences of another person. Or did you read otherwise?

ayinba1:
Not an argument but a reasonable dialogue, A call to the truth is what muslims are enjoined to do.

Okay, we have often tried to enter into dialogue with the muslim "staff" who delight in arguing. It is still left to be seen whether they understand that for what it truly is.

Cheers.

Backslider:
Your Law (Sharia) are that of the neanderthal age.

Lol, @Backslider . . it is not easy to hold oneself when passion drives us. But don't you think that slurring people's persuasions would not benefit the parties either way? Perhaps we can discuss with them instead of . . .?!? Blessings.

Hi huxley,

Thank you again for those two very legitimate questions, which I would like to summarily address:

huxley:
Why do you think only your definition of atheism (denial of the existence of god) the correct? All other definitions dating back 400 years appear to be wrong. Why is that so?

Actually, it is not my own definition of atheism; and as you can see I've hitherto referenced atheists themselves on both sides of the paradigm. The reason why I have been inclined to adopt the radical definition of those in the Doug Jessef and Ernest Nagel camp (even though I'm not an atheist) is because they have cogent and irrefutable reasons for rejecting the ideas of other atheists such as George Smith and d'Holbach. As also demonstrated earlier from the atheist guys at EvilBible.com, they have quite the same reasons as those of the Nagel camp as to what really is to be understood as atheism proper. Smith and d'Holbach considered ideas about atheism to include children for reasons that are too weak and defenceless in the proper sense of the word.

Of course, huxley, it doesn't mean that by arguing the point in Jessef et al, I was necessarily making rubbish of the opinions of other atheists. No, not at all - everyone is free to hold definitions for themselves as best suited to their worldviews. What is the problem in the Smith-d'Holbach camp? It is rather that they are redefining issues and making claims which ignore the facts on the ground and therefore including children in their narrow philosophy. Tell me, do these guys sincerely believe that that children are atheists because they consciously deny the existence of God?

huxley:
Can you provide evidence that the positive definition has been the position consistently defended by atheist, apart from Doug Joseph?

Apart from Doug Jessef, Ernest Nagel, Kai Nielsen and Paul Edwards, there are a whole lot of well-informed atheists down through history (even within the 400 year span you indicated). The definition has not always been the same among atheists; but the point is that at all instances in further scrutiny, atheists have often denied the existence of God, gods, the supernatural, and paranormal phenomena and realities.

History reminds us that not all naturalists have been able to identify themselves as "atheists" - and that is why Thomas Huxley rather saw himself as an agnostic because he was not so inclined to deny the existence of God and the supernatural, though he argued that he did not have sufficient reason to be a theist. The difference is a huge one, and we should never lose sight of it.

huxley:
Will address your other points later.

HAve a good day!

Do have a pleasant weekend, huxley.

@affee,

affee:
MY DEAR, i think i will just put these words where ever I read words of ignorance.

Okay, your say. Many blessings.

davidylan:
Your father is also someone's son and also doubles as your mother's husband? Does that make him three different people?

Hehehoho. .  David, you don come again O!    Is that not the same thing as 1 + 1 + 1 = 3? How can the answer be = 1 again?Why you dey argue with tritheism nah?

O LORD, you are my God; I will exalt you;
I will praise your name, for you have done wonderful things,
plans formed of old, faithful and sure.

_{Isaiah 25:1}

Amen. He is faithful.

@ayinba,

Trinity is not Tritheism. I've been there and used the same argument against Christians until I was converted and believed the prophets who have already declared that God is Father.

I wonder.

@affee,

affee:
I believe that Jesus is GOD.
I don't have to argue with somebody that does not believe,no real christian should either.

Thank you yet again - those are words to be remembered.

@Frizy,

Frizy:
Allah said that those who read the scripture with "the right reading" among the people of the scripture are the rightly guided ones. That is anything that explains the uniqueness of God not having anybody sharing some parts of authority with Him, including Jesus is acceptable.An example is Thou shall not worship any god besides thy Lord.Which happens to be the first commandment in the Mosaic Law.

It was a simple question. Did Allah ask you to engage in editing anything from other people's scripture? Right reading is quite a different matter from "editing" the Scriptures - which of the two did Allah ask you to do?

Frizy:
Also anything that has a similar explanation to that revealed to Muhammed the prophet is also accepted.

And if Muhammad denied the prophets teachings, what then?

Frizy:
I read the psalms by King david, but any psalms besides that will never be validated.

Please post us a copy of the Psalms you read by David, thank you.

@Olabowale,

olabowale:
@Pilgrim.1: Shawn123 ask a question about the so called "writers," of the Bible. You did not answer her in any which way. Instead, you went on a tangent! Whats that all about? Should I answer her for you? I will give good reasons to support my answers. They will be factual, and iconoclast to the "Bible!"

I answered shawn123 in very simple terms and waited for him to plainly set his discourse in order. Since he didn't do so, I'm not in the habit of fluttering frantically with meaningless arguments such as have been characteristic of your discussions. I don't want readers to mistake your denials for my intelligence, thank you.

My dear @affee,

We have decided long ago to forego attacks, insults or castigations, and rather seek to settle down and talk. . . I mean, really talk! I would not have tried to even concern myself with such a discussion; but seeing that misconceptions about terms (whether theism or atheism) have been at the root of the disagreements so far, I decided to share what I know from factual sources with our atheist, rationalist and naturalist friends - so that they also learn to understand that theists (and I speak as a Christian theist) are not irrational or non-thinking people. I believe the apostles knew that questions would be asked when Peter stated:

[list][list]"¹⁵But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: ¹⁶Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ." (1 Peter 3:15-16).[/list][/list]

People will ask questions: and for us to fail to give reasoned answers is detrimental to our own cause. The difference is that we do so in a spirit of humility, common sense, and amicable/friendly attitude. I can testify that many atheists often get upset and closed minded to the Gospel of Jesus Christ when we insult or castigate them. They may do so, but we are not to return the same attitude in like manner.

Jesus is Lord and Saviour - I believe so and have experienced His supernatural power in my life. The reason for my Christian theistic position is what I'm trying to share with our friends.

Blessings.