₦airaland Forum

Michael Martin, Richard Dawkins, Nicholas Everett, et al

huxley:
Of course, humans would not be humans if we did not make improvement on what we already have working well. Thus some philosopher have actually started make and defending positive atheism. On such is Michael Martin, who has written a number of books on the subject. For my money, his best book on the subject is "Atheism - A Philosophical Justification"

In this work Martin defends both weak (negative atheism) and strong (positive) atheism. I shall be posting on his work in due course when I had had the time to digest better the arguments.

I look forward to such posts from his quotes.

huxley:
Other atheist scholars defend atheism from a probabilistic stance, basically say that after examining all the arguments, the chances of such a god as the Abrahamic god is extremely unlikely. Richard Dawkins and Nicholas Everett fall into this class.

We shall get to Richard Dawkins (often mentioned between my repostes) and Nicholas Everett as well in due course. I shall reserve my comments until then.

huxley:
In a pragmatic sense, what does all of this mean. Well for all intends and purposes, a weak atheist, a strong atheist, a probabilistic atheist and an agnostics share the same outlook of life. They live their lives practically without reverence to a god of deity. The subtly technical differences in their philosophical positions does not express itself into differences in their worldviews and their approach to life, as far as deities are concerned.

I quite appreciate your concluding remarks. . . it often helps for discussions of this sort to clearly give readers the gist of all accounts for those who may not have the time to read long posts.

However, as I have taken the time to enunciate the differences between the broad concept of atheism and agnosticism, I maintain that they are not the same and (to my knowledge) have never been confused between the informed propoents of either camp.

huxley:
And ultimately, this is what matters, whether one spends their valuable time and effort worshiping a being about whom they have no knowledge, or whether one spends one time and effort on more human and earthly related activities.

The ultimate issue is for atheists to understand that they cannot keep alleging that theists have "no knowledge" of the God whom we worship (I speak as a Christian theist and not for "theists" in general). We do have the knowledge of Him with whom we have to do; and such knowledge should not become a bother to the naturalist and earth-bound materialist. It is the active rejection of the supernatural and spiritual realities against which atheists argue that has been the ultimate question. The core values of theism are often welcomed by atheists themselves - an example being "morality". But that which the naturalist cannot define in naturalistic terms even on excuses of the superiority of "science" should also humble us as well - because when you ask the naturalist how he measures morality on scientific basis, he stands mute. Should he then justify his pragmatism against issues which he cannot disprove because he does not agree with the convictions of others?

huxley:
One of George Smiths seminal books, "The case Againgst God" is given in the link below;

http://www.federacionatea.org/documentos/thecaseagainstgod.pdf

Thanks, I have read quite a lot of George Smith. The wonder is that after a feast of his untennable and indefensible musings, I am able to shake my head and return to face the reality of our observable world. I would not be referencing such men as George H. Smith if I were you. . . particularly because his ideas have large gapping holes which have been pointed out by other atheists.

Just in kind, I may recommend you carefully read the sane response of Allistar McGrath to Richard Dawkins' delusion (no pun or disses intended).

On the whole, thank you for a calm and reasoned exercise. Let's do this again, ya? Yes!

Robert Flint, Richard Watson, et al. . .

huxley:
Unlike most of their modern counterparts, some previous Christians were fairminded enough to read what atheists had actually said before attacking their position. Once such person was Robert Flint, a highly respected scholar who wrote extensively on theology, history and economics. Flint clearly understood that atheism, as defended for many decades by prominent atheists, is negative rather than positive in character. In Agnosticism (1903), Flint pointed out that the atheist "is not necessarily a man who says, There is no God".

Robert Flint, though heralded as a brilliant mind in his time, unfortunately got that one wrong. Even before 1903, atheists themselves were understood to have used the word atheism as the denial of the existence of God - and for nearly over 250 years counting back from the present age, that has been the one underlying principle of that term among many atheists themselves. We may note indeed that after it has been consistently challenged, atheists have constantly redefined the term to persuade themselves about what they hold regarding their various ideas and creeds.

It is remarkable that the adjectives you alluded to earlier (such as "positive, negative, weak" atheism) are simply shades of meanings that are traced back, not to atheists themselves, but to theistic apologetics! If we examine this issue more closely, you will find that it was theistic apologists who helped identify these various forms of atheistic leanings, so that people do not misquote or misunderstand atheists when they attempt to remedy false concepts about their persuasions. But for all practical purposes, Robert Flint was incorrect to claim that atheists never asserted that "There is no God".

A second issue to note above is that Robert meant to discuss atheism, but actually he confused the term with agnosticism. The agnostic does not assume a concretely atheistic position of asserting the denial of the existence of God; what he generally posits is that he has no knowledge as to whether ot not God exists - a very different thing from the atheism we know and have been discussing so far.

huxley:
On the contrary, this "positive or dogmatic atheism, so far as being the only kind of atheism, is the rarest of all kinds. . ."

It is not rare - it is reductionistic to assume it so.

huxley:
The atheist is simply a person "who does notbelieve that there is a God", and this absence of belief may stem from nothing more than "want of knowledge that there is a God."

Flint again is wrong. I do not want to repeat myself ad hominem on this issue - as I have already distinguished the true definition from a reductionsitic idea of the terms. Atheism denies the existence of God; it is not a soft position of agnosticism (a want of knowledge that there is a God).

huxley:
Flient concludes: "The word atheist is a thoroughly honest unambiguous term. It means one who does not believe in God, and it means neither more nor less".

Poor Flint - dead wrong, and he should have been acquainted with the real world to know better.

huxley:
The same point had been made decades earlier by another Christian theologian, Richard Watson, who was well known for his attacks on Thomas Paine and other freethinkers. In a Biblical and Theological Dictionary (1831), Watson maintained that atheism literally means "without God": An atheist, "in the strict and proper sence of the word, is one who does not believe in the existence of god, or who owns no being superior to nature."

Is there any difference between Richard Watson's definition of one who "does not believe in the existence of god" and one who "denies the existence of God"?

The agnostic does not believe in God - whether God exists or not, he/she simply does not believe in Him. Atheism on the other hand is not "lack of belief", but rather a denial of the existence of God. The difference is this: the agnostic says: "I do not know", while the atheist says "I deny His existence". They should not be consfused as these gentlemen have confused the terms. The denial of the existence of God is not agnoticism, but rather atheism.

huxley:
Twentieth-century freethinkers have continued to defend the negative definition. In A Rationalist Enclyclopedia (1950) Joseph McCabe, a former Jesuit priest who became prominent atheist, defined atheism as "the absence of theistic belief".

Joseph McCabe would pass only in so far as he does not know the difference.

huxley:
And Chapman Cohen, president of Britain's National Secular Society and author of many books on atheism, wrote "If one believes in a god, one is a theist. If one does not belief in a god, then one is an A-theist - he is without that belief. The distinction between atheism and theism is entirely,exclusively, that of whether one has or has not a belief in God". (Why Atheism, Pages 23 - 24)

A convenient definition, which we may understand as posited for the reductionist interest. This kind of arguement stems from people who have no clue how to relate language migration between cultures. They make so much of the "a" while forgetting the meaning of the word as a whole. Let me give you an example:

Suppose we drive on about this idea that the prefix "a-" means "without", are we to qualify every concept as such? What about "bridge" and "abridge" - certainly, we know that "a[/b]bridge" does not mean "without bridge", and we have to look at its real meaning as standing in a word. Other examples are "[b]corn" and "acorn" - the latter term ([b]a[/b]corn) does not mean "without corn".

I only proffered this to clarify that when we read issues, we should not be easily misled by men sounding intelligent but are far from it. Atheism is the denial of God and the supernatural; it does not mean "without god", because the proper word for without theism is [b]non[/b]theism! The concept of nontheism is sometimes used to cover for atheism; but they are not the same.

Other perspectives now: G. H. Smith, d'Holbach and E. Nagel ~~

huxley:
This was also the view of Charles Bradlaugh, the most influential atehist in Victorian England. In The Freethinkers Textbook (1876), after noting that the meaning of atheism has been continously misrepresented, Bradlaugh went on to say "Atheism is without God. It does not assert no God".

Lol, Charles Bradlaugh should have waited to have a chat with Doug Jessef and people like Richard Dawkins who both assert a "no God" argument. If Bradlaugh was right, both Dawkins and Jessef must have missed the mark by a million miles.

huxley:
No historian has yet undertaken a thorough investigation of this negative definition, so we don't know when it came into common use, but we see traces of it as early as the 17th century. For exampl John Locke, in Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690), cited travel accounts that reported "whole nation[b]s[/b]" of atheists, "amongst whom there was to be found no notion of a God, no religion".

John Locke should please give us a few examples of the so-called "whole nations" (plural) among whom there were ever to be found no notion of a God or religion. I'll reserve my comment that he was merely carping, until he has provided such examples in his "exxtensive travels". Passing through a street selectively chosen to avoid concrete fact should not be interpreted as extensive travels of "whole nations".

huxley:
The negative definition also appears in the first comprehensive defense of atheism, Baron d'Holbach's The System of Nature (1770). "All children are atheists", according to d'Holbach, because they have no idea of God.

I'm glad you mentioned this, because d'Holbach has been severely criticised (and IMHO sometimes unjustly so) for this meaningless and misleading idea. He is often classed with George H. Smith in this position, because Smith is quoted to have argued something similar:

[list][list]". . .the man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist." [an example here - "from his 1990 book Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies"][/list][/list]

George Smith listed a lot of atheist quotes to justify this ideology; but most people quoting the same Smith are very often not acquainted of the fact that both Smith and d'Holbach have been intelligently critiqued by other atheists who found their musings quite untennable. Let me share a few of them: Ernest Nagel. This is what he stated to counter d'Holbach:

[list][list][list]Atheism is not to be identified with sheer unbelief,  Thus, a child who has recieved no religious instruction and has never heard about God, is not an atheist - for he is not denying any theistic claims.[/list][/list][/list]

What Nagel argues is very instructive for us. Smith believes that in including a child as an atheist, the reason is that the child has "the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved"; and yet, the same funny man goes on to state that such a child would be "still unaware of those issues". Now, please sir, could you decipher for us what sort of word-games Smith et al are playing here? How does someone be able to grasp an issue and yet still be unaware of it? Even so, where has such an event occured in reality - other than in Smith's unrealistic world?

Meanwhile, Ernest Nagel (an atheist himself) challenges such a rascal assumptions because he quite rightly notes that "a child who has recieved no religious instruction and has never heard about God, is not an atheist - for he is not denying any theistic claims"!! This is why I stated earlier that atheism "involves an active commitment to non-belief in God or gods, paranormal and supernatural phenomena, and spiritual values of any sort." In as much as a child has not expressed this commitment to non-belief in the issues involved, the child also has not denied the existence of God. The only logical thing to note here is that George Smith and d'Holbach were just confusing issues further for themselves.

Foote, continued:

huxley:
In a typical exchange, Foote challenged a critic "to refer me to one atheist who denies the existence of God". The atheist is a person who is without a belief in a god; "that is all the A before Theist really means".

Obstinacy does not pass for intelligence - Foote should have realised that. There are a lot of atheists who deny the existence of God, as has been noted from the argument in George Smith's definition. Like I said on entering this discussion, people like Doug Jessef is one honest such atheist whose definition of atheism is predicated on the question of the existence of God. Although he acknowledges that atheism is commonly understood as the denial of the existence of God, he preferred a slightly different stance, which at the end is simply saying the same thing in a new phrase. I'll let him speak for himself:

[list][list]"As commonly understood, atheism is the denial of the existence of God. I prefer a slightly different formulation, in which atheism is the claim that there is no rational justification for belief in the existence of God. More particularly, I take atheism to assert that, when all the evidence for and against is weighed, the best conclusion to draw is that there is no God." [see it here][/list][/list]

If Doug Jessef was not playing with words to his own detriment, could someone please explicate the difference (if any) between the denial of the existence of God and the conclusion that there is no God?!? What was Jessef playing at?

Okay, G. W. Foote and Doug Jessef may not have been contemporaries; but Foote should have been more reasonable to allow for the possibility that many atheists actually hold atheism to be the denial of the existence of God. Being so brash was certainly not working in his favour.

Continuing on Smith:

huxley:
Since an atheist is a person who does not believe in any god or number of gods, how we define atheist will depend on how we define god. Some theists have been called atheist for disbelieving in the god (gods) of the orthodox majority. Early Christians, for example, were frequently accused of atheism by their pagan critics. "We are called atheists", wrote Justin Martyr in the second century, "and we confess that we are atheists so far as the pagan gods are concerned, but not with respect to themost true God . . . "

Predictably. I had hoped that there was another reason why people would want to justify the reason for addressing Christians as atheistic. But it didn't come as a surprise to me that Justin Martyr happens to be one of the reasons for that idea. However, Justin martyr is absouletly wrong - as wrong as anyone would be suggesting such a term from the Martyrdom of Polycarp. Christians are still nonetheless as theistic as ever, and whatever ideas have been expressed by men who confused terminologies, it still does not pass the average intelligent discourse of understanding what they mean.

The etymology of the words "atheism" or "atheist" does not suggest that Christians are in any stretch to be viewed as atheists. The term may have been bantered across the fence in debates between early Christians and pagans (as already noted); but even before the emergence of Christianity, we should remember that: "In Greek they said atheos and atheotes; to these the English words ungodly and ungodliness correspond rather closely" (remember?). So, how pagans would have argued that Christians are by definition "ungodly" or glory in lifestyles of "ungodliness" is now up to the philosophical atheist to distinguish for us.

huxley:
Hence, if Christians qualify as atheist owing to their disbelief in the pagan gods, then everyone is an atheist of some sort, since those who believe in the god (or gods) of one religion will necessarily disbelieve in the god (or gods) of other religions. (From Why Atheism, pages 18 - 19)

Christians do not qualify as atheists - not even in the way Smith tries to dribble in this idea. Atheism is the denial of the existence of God, gods, the supernatural and paranormal phenomena. I have taken the time to show how even this very definition is what is concretely held by atheists today (minus the adjectives of "positive, negative or weak" atheists). As such, Christians have never denied the existence of God, gods or the supernatural, and one only needs read the Bible even in a cursory manner, and the fact is clear.

To even underscore the point, let me quote a direct verse from the Bible for those who might not have seen this point clearly:

[list][list][li]'For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth--as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"'-- [1 Cor. 8:5][/li][/list][/list]

What does this mean? Christians believe that indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"; however, what distinguishes the Christian theist is the fact that his commitment and devotion is reserved for only one God:

[list][list][li]But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.'-- [1 Cor. 8:6][/li][/list][/list]

These are statements which people like George Smith ought to have carefully understood and applied before taking the very faulty position of trying to make atheists out of Christian theists. Indeed, pagans may have used such terms against Christians, but we know that an accusation is not a scholarly statement of fact. The fact is that Christian theists are not to be confused for any idea of atheists.

However, having critiqued George Smith's faulty definition, I do appreciate the fact that you didn't leave it just at the quote, but went on to evaluate the substance of his persuasion by contrasting them with other views expressed by atheists themselves:

huxley:
Nineteenth-century atheists repeatedly attacked the short and easy refutation by exposing its faulty definition of atheism (known as positive atheism, since it positively affirms the non-existence of god). Consider the British atheist G. W. Foote, editor of the Freethinker and the author on many books and articles on atheism. Foote's atheism was scarcely of the timid variety; convicted of blasphemy and sent to prison, his case provoked the young John Staurt Mill to write a passionate defence of religious freedom. Yet Foote repeated insisted that atheism is properly defined as the absence (or lack) of theistic belief, and not the denial of God's existence.

This scenario shows us just how one may be too polarized with his own narrow and reductionistic views to even allow reason to help him. Poor G. W. Foote, he should have known far better if he had the courage to be honest with himself, at least.

Now, on to the other matters you posted:

huxley:
I shall start by presenting text from some well know books about atheism. Firstly, lets see George Smith, in Why Atheism

George Smith defends the longest-standing known definition of atheism, called negative atheism (or weak atheism). This definition has a long pedigree. Positive atheism (the denial of the existence of God) is not a positions often defended by atheists.

While I may not concern myself with the adjectives appended to atheism itself (such as 'positive atheism', 'negative atheism' or even 'weak atheism'), my one focus has been what the term "atheism" connotes. Just like the term theism simply being the expression of belief in the existence of God or gods, there are several qualifiers to distinguish between various types of theism. My present concerns however are about atheism, and not the adjectives appended thereto; and this is why people like George Smith is of very little consequences at the moment. Recall that I already stated:
[quote author=pilgrim.1 link=topic=171391.msg2822479#msg2822479 date=1221784534]Again, I want to thank you for inviting a discussion about what we believe atheism to be, from a practical and intellectual perspective. What this means is that public opinions that blur the lines and make for shallow reading will not be much of our concerns here; but what follow is a seeking to know the real gist of what this subject entails so that we shed ourselves of the misconceptions that people often banter around.[/quote]Yet, I shall patiently examine what you posted.

huxley:
Read Smith below to get a sense of the definition;

Derived from the Greek word atheos (meaning "godless, not believing in the existence of gods", an atheist is "is one who does not believe in the existence of a deity". Atheism, or the absence of theistic belief, is therefore a perspective, not a philosophy. Although there can be atheistic philosophies that are based solely on naturalistic principles, there cannot be a "philosophy of atheism" per se, because a negative position can never serve as a satisfactory foundation for a philosophical system.

Let me first slice through G. Smith's take on the subject before going on to make other remarks on his arguements. According to what you posted, four things stand out:

(1) Smith reiterates my point that the very core of atheism is the denial of the existence of God - nothing less or short of that. Many people of atheistic leanings today like to lean towards the reductionist idea of viewing atheism as merely "a lack of belief" in the existence of God or gods; but as we have seen, that would include a whole lot of people who do not identify themselves as atheists - such as was the case with Thomas Huxley who rather coined the term "agnostic" instead of standing up to be counted as an atheist. The underlying element in atheism proper is the denial of the existence of God, and this is clearly indicated in Smith's quote above.

(2) If Smith makes the case against the idea of a "philosophy of atheism", it well goes to demonstrate my second point already - that there is no such thing as "philosophical atheism". I can agree with him on that, not because I wished that he buttresses my point, but rather because many atheists of popular standing have again and again rejected such a concept as philosophical atheism and its derivatives. If such is the case (as surely as it is), then I put it to you, dear huxley, that your inclination to see yourself as one, simply does not arise. Your statement that you were led to "the notion of the philosophical atheism", to which you concluded: "It is with this latter group that I belong", only now is dismissed even by atheists like George Smith.

(3) "A Perspective" - this is how Smith views atheism, and that already again tells us that atheism is a worldview. . . the very thing that I already pointed out to you. As such, it only reinforces my rejoinders that the point should not be taken for granted that atheists themselves are the ones who define it as a movement with codified sets of principles, creeds, and ideologies. These are not all in consensus, as many atheists are free to define the term narrowly for themselves without creeds, principles or ideoligies. However, Smith is one of those very few atheists who admit to the fact that atheism is regarded as a "Perspective" (in the same context as a movement, a system, a Weltanschauung, or worldview). You may disagree with that; but you'll see my point later on as the thread progresses.

(4) I think many people miss the classic point that Smith has made in this quote: "a negative position can never serve as a satisfactory foundation for a philosophical system". This thought is true in many respects, and that is why I have always intoned that "attacking" one's convictions simply because we do not agree with them will never produce a satisfactory foundation for whatever worldviews we hold. I know this truth firsthand while still a muslimah and was visiting skeptic and infidel websites to ferret quotes for "attacking" the Christian faith. Did I gain any satisfactory basis for my own convictions back then? Not in one bit. After my conversion to Christianity, I still value the timeless truth that negativism (either in theism or atheism) does not satisfy the realities of our world.

Hi again huxley,

Good to read from you. I was waiting until you had pointed me to a few cogent resources before I replied. So here:

huxley:
It is worth noting that in classical times, the Christians were called atheists by the Romans

But the whole multitude, marvelling at the nobility of mind displayed by the devout and godly race of Christians, cried out, "Away with the Atheists!"
-- The Martyrdom of Polycarp 3.2

I already pointed out from the online resource that "The discussion of atheoi was pronounced in the debate between early Christians and pagans, who each attributed atheism to the other" (etymology of Atheism).

huxley:
Christians were atheoi, "no-godders," and thus were considered a serious political and religious threat.[/color]

It is left to you to show us how Christians who believed in God suddenly became "no godders" in terms of atheism.

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

Thanks for that wisdom.

chus-ben,

[quote author=chus-ben link=topic=173679.msg2828040#msg2828040 date=1221893852]Please can someone tell me who is this Rv. King,[/quote]Seems you have already made the intro yourself:
[quote author=chus-ben link=topic=173679.msg2828040#msg2828040 date=1221893852]that is serving jail terms for murdering two of his church members.[/quote][quote author=chus-ben link=topic=173679.msg2828040#msg2828040 date=1221893852]Recently i learnt that he was caught in his Kirikiri prison committing adultery, the same sin he killed his members for.[/quote]That's enough to evaluate his title of MOG ("man of God".

[quote author=chus-ben link=topic=173679.msg2828040#msg2828040 date=1221893852]Is this man a hypochrist or anti-christ.[/quote]Dem plenty.

@affee,

affee:
Christianity doesnt either,

I don't think that I ever argued that Christianity does. The lesson should be well suited to those who have the fancy of arguing to make them the same.

affee:
I believe that sallah food,according to the Christian faith has been sacrificed to idols.

Well, your say.

affee:
any food given to my family on sallah day is given back to the almajiris.

Okay, we all have our various persuasions. I think the issue is quite plain and simple. One should not receive what they have rejected in their hearts. 1 Corinthians 10 shows has plain teaching on this subject.

@manmustwac,

manmustwac:
Well to the best of my knowledge the word present like middle and centre dosen't have an opposite.

Thanks for frankly answering that question. And that was my point - life issues are not as simplistic as many assume.

manmustwac:
So coming back to my point lets imagine we have a pair of scales that are used to measure weights. Lets say we put 5 pounds in coins on the left scale dish and 5 pounds in coins in the right scale dish, both will not be equally balanced unless there is a centre of gravity {or middle}

Good observation.

manmustwac:
Now listen pilgrim1 your here in the present today reading my post right, yesterday was the past and tomorrow which is the opposite to today is the future,

Technically, even scholars make a grave mistake to classify it like that. We all know that in English classes as kids, we were taught that the opposite of tomorrow is yesterday; but I remember asking my teacher back then: "what about the opposite of today?" Embarrassed, he fumbled about for a while and simply shouted me down. I'll never forget that experience, though I chuckled at his blooper.

manmustwac:
or i can say before is the past after is anything you do in the future and now that your reading my post is the present

Okay, good point.

manmustwac:
Now lets imagine we put yesterday on one side of the scales and the opposite word which is tomorrow on the other side of the scales, to make sure everything is well balanced we need today. Because without today you can't have yesterday and tomorrow. Now lets say we decide to put past on one side of the scales and future on the other side of the scales. We need the present because without the present there can't be a past and there can't be a future. Likewise we can put before on side of the scales and after on the other but we need now which is another word for present or today to balance it.

Amazing.

manmustwac:
So coming back to your point about the afterlife, if theres an afterlife which is on one side of the scales there must be a beforelife on the other and now in the middle to balance it. So since your convinced that there is an afterlife how can you be so sure when u haven't experienced the opposite which i called the before life?

Good question. We are experiencing the present life - no doubt about that. The problem here is that the naturalist is stuck in the middle: he wants nothing to do with the questions of pre-existence (the past) or eternity (the future)! Why? Because he only measures issue in life on absolute natural indices. Since the naturalist only thinks of physical/natural events, he has no philosphical approaches to measuring the supernatural - which is why one should not be surprised that he often denies what he cannot explain within his very narrow ideology.

It is this question of the supernatural that highlights the difference between a naturalist understanding of the reality of life and the supernatural realities of our world. To answer your question: I believe in the supernatural world - a reality that I have witnessed for myself in several ways. I cannot explain the underlying mechanism in natural or physical terms, because they are beyond the natural (thus, the "supernatural".

Let me give you an example: I believe in the supernatural promises in the Bible. Why? Because I have witnessed the power of healing through prayer. By extension, if the prayers could produce such supernatural results, it would not be difficult for me to trust that the promises of eternity are real. Life is beyond a mere natural and/or physical descriptive understanding; rather, there is a reality beyond the physical and natural present world - it is a world of supernatural events. True, I have not experienced this supernatural eternity (the future); nor do I know what the pre-existent world (the past) was like. But I do know that the present is a link to both pre-existence and eternity - by the power of supernatural realities that are way beyond explication in naturalistic terms.

Good word.

affee:
. . . but I believe that there is a stage You get to in your christian life and realise that all this things don't matter.

1 Cor. 13:11.

affee:
dnt let your hair do become a source of offense for others,in the process of getting offended they could sin against God.

Romans 14:13.

Amen. But further. . .

(1) You are also called to suffer for His Name:
[list][list][li]"For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe on Him, but also to suffer for His sake" ~ [Php. 1:29][/li][/list][/list]

(2) As Christians, we are called to partake of His sufferings:
[list][list][li]"But rejoice, inasmuch as ye are partakers of Christ's sufferings; that, when His glory shall be revealed, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy" ~ [1 Peter 4:13][/li][/list][/list]

@bawomolo,

bawomolo:
it's so hilarious how two groups of people who worship the same god can drive a wedge between each other

Correction: Islam at its very core does not teach that we worship the same God. This fancy idea has been held on for eons that it's amazing how many people can be easily swept along in that deluge.

Secondly, I was actually waiting for one of your ratioonalist atheist to mention this point about the two groups. But hey, isn't that the very same thing that happens among atheists? Do atheists not have the same discombobulation even in defining what they mean by atheism? My dear, it may be alright to rationalize this idea away; but the reality is that atheists among themsleves do not hold to a consensus of what they actually stand for when it comes to actually defining their core beliefs. They also drive wedges between their ideals.

Humility is still very highly prized in our selfish modern world.

olabowale:
A muslim needs to disagree with any part? Can a person disagrees with anything in the Qur'an and still remain a muslim before Allah the Almighty?!

That was why I asked him the simple question in my quote. If he is still wet behind the ears, I would have set him an assignment that would keep him really busy - free of charge.

olabowale:
In other words, is there a room for disagreement with Allah and still obedient servant/slave; a mumin, a subirin, etc. A muslim? Submitting totally?

Let him find the liver to answer my simple question, then he would wake up to reality.

Regards.

Frizy:
Just as you are aware. I read some parts of the bible I agree with, and edit those I don't agree with.

Is this what Allah asked you to do? In other words, you literally agree with everything the Quran says?

cgift:
If i were a man of God with such wonder working annoiting, i will be all glad to have the cameras on me to confound doubting Thomases.

The camera is already on you, but I'm not convinced!

Okay, just teasing you. Don't you think that people would still have concerns about that as well? There's nothing people do these days that you will not find the Thomases at your doorstep. . . and talk of having the camera on you, m-e-n. . they will just tear you to pieces with a claim about self-importance!

Lol. . . but that would only be interpreted as a prootection of human interest.

davidylan:
What is it about the bible that whips the muslim into a frenzy?

The undeniable uniqueness of Christ.

So, what's the update? What reasons did the bishop give for asking the pastors to go?

1 Thessalonians 5:21

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

Frizy:
I read the bible and I edit every sentence I read to the right context or ignore the incomprehensible altogether.

That is a dangerous precedence to adopt or otherwise offer as admonition to others. It may seem to please you; but it definitely is not what God intended for you. It may help to take the warning of Proverbs 30:6 - "Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar."

Hi Zino,

Zino Ben:
The question was who conjured the name athiests and you just continue to run in a zig zag manner without actually stating a name. You use phrases like "ancient greek", which ancient greek are you talking about? That person should have a name or something or clan that could be traced.

I think you are making a fundamental mistake in assuming I was going to name a particular person. "Ancient Greek"  is not the name of a person; nor is it synonymous with Christianity. I merely offered the available historical pointers to show that many atheists have continued to make this unsubstantiated allegation that the words "atheist" and "atheism" were devised by Christian theists against non-believers - and such an idea is totally wrong, because it is not supported by available evidence.

This was your direct assertion from the other thread:

Zino Ben:
1. Athiesm is a word conjured by you theists.

. . . and my direct answer was: "Sorry, atheism was not a word conjured by theists - and atheists themselves will tell you that!"

In this thread, I then proceeded to give you and huxley the etymology of that word, and clearly demonstrated why you were wrong. This idea that theists were the ones who devised the word has been erratically bantered for much too long - and as you can see from the atheist EviBible.com answers, it is quite an absurd claim that is "totally unsupported by any facts" (Stupid Argument #3).

My point was to simply show you that your assertion has no factual basis - and even reasoned atheists themselves will openly tell you that!

Zino Ben:
Secondly, there was no reason to bring cicero into this because it doesnt buttress any of your points except being a translator of a word to  latin. It still doesnt answer the question of who conjured the name atheist!

I mentioned Cicero to show that he lived before the Christian era and translated a word well known in his time into latin. You made a clear assertion that Christian theists are the ones who devised such a word, but you categorically failed to name the particular Christian theist who did so!

Zino Ben:
Finally your allusion to drachmann's defination of atheism is subject to his own opinion and not all athiest will agree with  him, like wise your other definations from evil bible.com.

That may be so, and I can understand why such answers may not be quite suited to you especially when you have held erroneous definitions and made unsubstantiated assertions alleging that the word was devised by Christians. The point in Drachman's was to show that people who are able to reason simply and know the facts on ground will state it as simply and not assume to redefine a word to suit and placate the general public This is precisely what the EviBible.com discusses under the "Stupid Argument #4".

Zino Ben:
When people state their own opinions it is subject to criticism and suspicion. How do you know that one independent onlooker at this debate wont pick out a defination by pilgrim on nairaland and place it in another forum and claim it is a word of authority because pilgrim is a highly respected member of nairaland so therefor her definations and opinions are law and authoritative.

Of course, I have often stated that even my own opinions are constantly critiqued by me! I have always tried to come back and admit my own shortcomings (as recently in the Sounds from Hell thread). The point is for someone to check what is being said by anyone, reason out why such persuasions are held, understand the raison d'etre for such persuasions, as well as critique it in an intelligent manner. To simply reject something without proffering an alternative and well articulated discussion instead does not amount to critical evaluation of a stated opinion.

Zino Ben:
If i was in such a forum like that, i would roundly denounce such an argument and state it is just your opinion and nothing more.

I can be thankful that I did not quote myself - I quoted several atheists themselves who are well reasoned on the subject.

Regards.

huxley:
BTW, why would you as a Muslim read the infidel website (http://www.infidels.org)? Just curious

Well, I was just being plain stupid in those days. It seemed such a "good" spot at the time to ferret vicious attacks from those sites against Christians and the Bible. . . until I became the wiser and gave up such adventures.

Lol, Zino. . . you're such a spoiler dearie! How could you leave us (huxley and I) rocking the romance alone?

Anyhow, I had a good time dialoguing with you. Do have a wonderful evening.

@Zino,

In view of this question:

Zino Ben:
Then who conjured the name athiests? Since your beating around the bush and not specifically trying to zone the idea of the word athiest to a particular founder.

Please find my answers in subsequent repostes here. The other issues will be addressed in like rational manner, and thank you again for being patient to discuss with me.

Please note that in order to appeal to your good sense of judgement, I have hiterto quoted atheists themselves (David Eller and Doug Jessef) in defining above what atheism actually is, and those who are properly called atheists. These are not my subjective views, but they are what atheists themselves would have us carefully consider.

Now, the next question, as Zino had asked earlier in the other thread (and one which you, huxley, have often made reference to) is this question:

"Then who conjured the name athiests?"

So many people again make the mistake of assuming that this term "atheist" (or even "atheism" was devised by Christian theists to use against non-believers. On the contrary, those terms have a rich and interesting etymology, and as we shall see, the term was first used by a philospher who was not a Christian. I'll proffer the reference for you to see for yourself:

(1) Please see this reference on the various etymology of Atheism addressing this issue online. Some of the entries simply define the word, but a few others give us some background understanding of how it was derived; let me quote one such:

[list][list]In early Ancient Greek, the adjective atheos (from privative a- + theos "god" meant "without gods" or "lack of belief in gods". The word acquired an additional meaning in the 5th century BC, expressing a total lack of relations with the gods; that is, "denying the gods, godless, ungodly", with more active connotations than asebēs, "impious". Modern translations of classical texts sometimes translate atheos as "atheistic". As an abstract noun, there was also atheotēs: "atheism". Cicero transliterated atheos into Latin. The discussion of atheoi was pronounced in the debate between early Christians and pagans, who each attributed atheism to the other.[/list][/list]

Please note that even before Cicero, the terms and the derivatives were in use among those in early Ancient Greek period. Cicero was a philospher who lived before the Christian era (January 3, 106 BC – December 7, 43 BC), and you could imagine that as far back as that time, this man had translated the word into Latin. This is why I pointed out to Zino to carefully check his references and see that it was not Christian theists who first derived this term.

But it gets even more interesting, though. The terms in their early usage in Greek were only derived from Greek roots, but they were not Greek words - their meanings quite different from what many of us have wondered about:

[list][list]A.B. Drachmann (1922) notes:
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Atheism and atheist are words formed from Greek roots and with Greek derivative endings. Nevertheless they are not Greek; their formation is not consonant with Greek usage. In Greek they said atheos and atheotes; to these the English words ungodly and ungodliness correspond rather closely. In exactly the same way as ungodly, atheos was used as an expression of severe censure and moral condemnation; this use is an old one, and the oldest that can be traced. Not till later do we find it employed to denote a certain philosophical creed. (p.5) [/list][/list]

The article following that quote says that: "In English, the term atheism is the result of the adoption of the French athéisme in about 1587." Please visit that link and see for yourself. I just to call Zino's attention to clarify this issue so we don't keep making this same mistake of accusing people wrongly. Like I said, I often like to make articulated references to whatever I state, so that no one assumes that I have nothing as evidence for what I argue.

Since it is said that their English usage derived from 16th century French usage, it may also be of interest to check this other website on Etymology to get the feel of what the definition of atheism entailed: "1571, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny the gods, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (c.1534) which is perhaps from It. atheo "atheist.""

It is from the above that I feel persuaded that people speaking about atheism as simply the "lack of belief" in God are making a reductionist claim. As we see above, its English usage traces from 16th century French and meant nothing less than to "deny the gods". Just how serious is this as compared to the idea of a "lack of belief"? For that answer, I need to take you again to another atheist website: "Evil Bible.com".

EvilBible.com has a few things on their website in defining Atheism. I should simply let them speak for themselves by quoting them directly:


[list][list] On the Definition of the Words Atheism and Atheist
(Page 2 - Stupid Arguments)

Some of people who want to redefine the words "atheism" and "atheist" to mean "a lack of belief in the existence of gods" have used some incredibly stupid arguments to support their position. I will list some of these arguments and examine them in detail.

Stupid Argument #1: The etymology of the word "atheism" means "a lack of belief".

A commonly repeated error is that the word "atheism" was derived from the prefix "a-", meaning "without", and the word "theism", meaning a belief in God. Therefore they claim that "atheism" means "without a belief in God". This is incorrect because the etymology of the word "atheism" derives from the Greek word "atheos" meaning "godless". The "-ism" suffix, which can be roughly mean "belief", was added later. The etymology of the word means "godless belief" not "without a belief in gods".

Stupid Argument #2: Most Dictionaries Define "Atheism" as a "Lack of Belief".

I see this lie quite often on the internet. The truth of the matter is that no reputable dictionary has a "lack of belief" definition. See page 3 for more on this subject.


Stupid Argument #3: Most Dictionary Definitions of "Atheism" are Wrong Because They are Written by Biased Christians.

This absurd claim is totally unsupported by any facts, much like the gigantic government conspiracy to cover-up UFO landings.


Stupid Argument #4: Only Atheists get to Define What the Word "Atheist" Means.

This argument is absurd for two reasons. First of all, words are defined by common usage, not by the people who fit that definition. For example the word "handicapped" is defined by common usage not just by handicapped people.

Secondly, a "lack of belief" definition for the word "atheist" would include so many agnostics, babies, infants, and the undecided that the self-identified atheists would be a very small minority. Babies and infants would make up a majority of the "lack of belief" atheists and I haven't heard of any of them who could express a coherent definition.

source: http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_2.htm#1
[/list][/list]


Dear huxley (and Zino et al)

So far, in other to keep a balanced view and appeal to your unbiased sense of rationality, you would notice that these are frank statements and admissions from atheists themselves. From David Eller, to Doug Jessef, now to Evil Bible.com, I have tried to articulate issues in disgestible forms and make my point. And the point is simply: so many people are making very serious blunders by redefining and ever changing their definitions of atheism. When called upon to carefully examine their misconceptions, they fly off the pan and accuse Christians of having devised such terms to suit themselves. How serious a damage is done to the cause of rationalistic thinking where issues like these are missed.

I do hope that you would begin to understand that I'm always being fair and consistent and it's not in my place to disparage anyone or "attack" their views. I believe that rational discourses are easy to hold, without insults, and so that misconceptions are no longer held.

Cheers gentlemen.

Dear Zino,

Zino Ben:
Then who conjured the name athiests? Since your beating around the bush and not specifically trying to zone the idea of the word athiest to a particular founder.

As promised, I'm taking the time to answer such questions and also share some other insights on this and other matters in the other thread, "Moral Victory". Cheers and do have a wonderful evening/night.

@huxley,

In view of the questions I have asked in other threads, I here present my persuasions about them from the point of having carefully examined them. I'm sure that Zino Ben would benefit from this as well, since he has asked me to share what the definition and etymology of atheism actually is.

Again, I want to thank you for inviting a discussion about what we believe atheism to be, from a practical and intellectual perspective. What this means is that public opinions that blur the lines and make for shallow reading will not be much of our concerns here; but what follow is a seeking to know the real gist of what this subject entails so that we shed ourselves of the misconceptions that people often banter around.

What are the observable references to the atheistic worldview?

First, it would make more sense to define what is meant by atheism itself. There are many conflicting definitions that many atheists hold about the term; but for all practical purposes of this discussion, I would be leaving the reductionist idea that "atheism simply means the lack of belief in any god". My reason for throwing out that idea is simple: there are a lot of people who do not believe in God, but that in itself does not make them atheists. 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.

It is inaccurate to assume that 'not believeing in God' equates to "atheism". The latter is much more than a 'lack of belief' in God - it involves an active commitment to non-belief in God or gods, paranormal and supernatural phenomena, and spiritual values of any sort. It is in this regard that the argument stating that "Everyone is born an atheist" is quite redundant and gravely uninformed. Many people hold that idea because they took David Eller's word for it, who in 2004 in his book Natural Atheism, p. 12 stated that: "All humans are born Atheists".

On the contrary, a better and more rigorous way of looking at it would be as Doug Jessef succinctly stated in 1998 - that someone who simply lacks theistic belief does not count as an atheist; his quote --

[list][list]"Someone who simply lacks theistic belief, a small child who has never been taught about God, or someone who simply rejects God as an act of rebellion does not count as an atheist"[/list][/list]

Please note that this is a critical definition of atheism - given by an atheist himself. It means therefore, that the idea to make atheists out of babies is not shared by knowledgeable atheists around the world. Further, the rationalistic assumption that "everyone is born an atheist" simply does not hold any substance at all. This is one example of how people can make a grave mistake (as David Eller did), and many people would just take their word for it!

@huxley,

First, let me commend your calmer response this time around. I have enjoyed a good day discussing with you, and you're one of those few who convince me that not all rationalists are irrational when one gets to know and settle down to speak with them.

That said, let me clear the air for you:

huxley:
Firstly, your method of discussion is rather strange, to say the least. You keep making glibe accusation of illogic, bad reason or assertion etc, yet you fail to show how my reasoning is illogical or bad, or support your assertions. I would be interest in seeing how my reasoning is bad

I apologise, for it was not my intention that you should feel that way. I still maintain that I'm a disciple of my own advice - that the goal of reasoning should never be to attack anyone or put them on edge. However, I admit that my method of discussion is rather strange - and it is not the first time that a rationalist would tell me that. Here is how I approach issues of this nature:

First, I prepare myself to not misrepresent anyone or anything in my posts, even if they do not seem to agree with me. But for me to be able to hold a consistent position, I should be prepared well enough - by reading wide, knowing the gist of the various arguments for the subject I hope to enter into, and be able to critique even my own persuasions. Strange that I should critique my own thoughts. . . but that is what it is.

Second, to enable us maintain a focus of the real question being broached, I ask simple questions without demanding that my discussant must necessarily answer them - people should not feel compelled to answer my questions if they do not want to do so, and I should not disparage them for it. At the end of the day, I should be prepared to share well articulated references with them that will help them rethink issues through as carefully as could be managed so that they may gain some insight into what they might otherwise have been mistaken for so long up to the time I entered the discussion with them. That is why I refrain from seeking to disparage people or "attack" them, no matter how grotesque their ideology may appear to me.

That said, let me now give you a simply answer to the main gist of what we have been trying to deal with - the meaning of atheism.

mazaje:
@Zino Ben very nice rebuttal. . . . . . . when you ask the Christians to defend the embarrassing passages of the bible they come up with stupid explanations, sometimes when they realize that their explanations fall flat they resort to damnation and insults. . . . . .

Insulting and "attacking" people's beliefs is not the same thing as thinking intelligently.