Atheism & Religious Beliefs

[barleycorn]

My apologies, I'm left with this "unified definition" concept beaten in to my mind from the hundreds of posts Mr.Smith/Maxmaximus made when he was banging on about it for so long

The least said about that individual the better (it may even be my fault as I think I brought it up first).

 

I've found every believer has a definition of their god (when pursued on the subject), I suppose it depends what you mean by coherent though.

 

It simply means that the definition has to be consistent within itself, orderly and have true meaning. And here meaning is the crux of the matter, for example:

 

'A chair is a chair' is a meaningless statement, i.e. the predicate tells me nothing about the subject. For the statement to have any meaning the predicate must provide a sufficient explanation (or definition) of what the subject is. So the above example would need to become something like 'A chair is a raised surface supported on leg(s) used for sitting on' in order for it to be a meaningful definition of a chair.

 

In other words the definition has to be a description of the fundamental nature of a thing which allows it to do the things it is purported to do.

 

So, to go back to the example of a chair, if never having seen or heard of a chair someone were to say to me 'Chairs are comfortable' and I were to then ask 'What is a chair?', if they were to reply to me 'Chairs can be many different colours' this would tell me nothing about the fundamental nature of chairs which allows them to be comfortable and many different colours. These types of descriptors are known as secondary characteristics, or attributes. They tell me nothing about a things primary attributes that allow it possess them.

 

To extend this argument to God, if I were to ask a believer 'What is God?' and they were to reply 'God is good (or omnipotent etc)' that would tell me nothing about the nature of God, all you have done is given me a secondary attribute of God, in fact in lieu of some primary attributes there is nothing to connect the concept of God with good. To borrow a phrase...

To say that God is ‘good’ or ‘wise’ is to say nothing more then some unknowable being possesses some unknown qualities in an unknowable way

 

jb

[mjw47]

It seems pretty obvious exactly who, in this debate, is making things personal in order to muddy the waters and avoid, at all costs, admitting to being mistaken and out of their depth.

 

Please explain exactly how I am out of my depth? I made a perfectly acceptable remark that I am an agnostic & have no idea whether or not God exists.

Instead of taking that statement -which was not intended to antagonize or cause argument - at face value, it was responded to by posters rushing in to explain how I wasn't actually what I thought I was, I apparently was what they thought I was.

After trying to explain, patiently at first, that no, I actually meant what I said certain posters continued to insist that I had it wrong.

 

Thanks for taking the time to list all the posts above, now go back & read the posts that they were in response to & you may well understand why a certain amount of irritation is creeping in.

 

Then by all means come back & explain how I am 'mistaken' & 'out of my depth' when at no time have I ever tried to explain any ones philosophy accept my own.

 

People who keep on insisting that their view of someone elses beliefs should take precedent over that persons own views are the ones who are mistaken & out of their depth.

[barleycorn]

Please explain exactly how I am out of my depth? I made a perfectly acceptable remark that I am an agnostic & have no idea whether or not God exists.

Instead of taking that statement -which was not intended to antagonize or cause argument - at face value, it was responded to by posters rushing in to explain how I wasn't actually what I thought I was, I apparently was what they thought I was.

After trying to explain, patiently at first, that no, I actually meant what I said certain posters continued to insist that I had it wrong.

 

Thanks for taking the time to list all the posts above, now go back & read the posts that they were in response to & you may well understand why a certain amount of irritation is creeping in.

 

Then by all means come back & explain how I am 'mistaken' & 'out of my depth' when at no time have I ever tried to explain any ones philosophy accept my own.

 

People who keep on insisting that their view of someone elses beliefs should take precedent over that persons own views are the ones who are mistaken & out of their depth.

It has been explained to you, several times. Here it is again:

Agnostic/gnostic relates to knowledge

Theist/atheist relates to belief.

The two are mutually exclusive.

 

jb

[mjw47]

Of course, there exists an alternate reality in which post 15 reads: "Crikey, I never realised that. Thanks Roots. You learn something every day", the thread is only 2 pages long and mjw has preserved his dignity.

 

I wonder which reality is the more desireable one.

 

Oh I get it now, you're looking for someone to tell you how clever you are.

Shame, as much as I would like to help you out on that one I was raised to tell the truth at all times, except of course where it would upset someone.

 

As I'm sure you're a big strong lad I'm sure you'll get by without my approval.

[Obelix]

Please explain exactly how I am out of my depth? I made a perfectly acceptable remark that I am an agnostic & have no idea whether or not God exists.

Instead of taking that statement -which was not intended to antagonize or cause argument - at face value

 

 

But your statement is not possible to take at face value because it's nonsensical.

 

It's like saying "I have no knowledge of internal combustion engines, and I don't know if I prefer petrol or diesel fuelled ones."

 

One of your statments must be false - if you don't know about IC engines, then you cannot possibly have an opinion on which fuelling options are best, and if you do have a valid opinion on fuel options, then you must know that they exist.

 

Do you see where the confusion arises?

[mjw47]

It has been explained to you, several times. Here it is again:

Agnostic/gnostic relates to knowledge

Theist/atheist relates to belief.

The two are mutually exclusive.

 

jb

 

Agnostic. OED.=a person who BELIEVES that one cannot know whether or not God exists.

 

Any explanation for that apparent discrepancy there?

[harvey19]

But your statement is not possible to take at face value because it's nonsensical.

 

It's like saying "I have no knowledge of internal combustion engines, and I don't know if I prefer petrol or diesel fuelled ones."

 

One of your statments must be false - if you don't know about IC engines, then you cannot possibly have an opinion on which fuelling options are best, and if you do have a valid opinion on fuel options, then you must know that they exist.

 

Do you see where the confusion arises?

 

I consider mjw47's statement makes perfect sense.

He is simply stating that he does not know and has an open mind on the matter.

[mikem8634]

Please explain exactly how I am out of my depth? I made a perfectly acceptable remark that I am an agnostic & have no idea whether or not God exists.

Instead of taking that statement -which was not intended to antagonize or cause argument - at face value, it was responded to by posters rushing in to explain how I wasn't actually what I thought I was, I apparently was what they thought I was.

After trying to explain, patiently at first, that no, I actually meant what I said certain posters continued to insist that I had it wrong.

 

Thanks for taking the time to list all the posts above, now go back & read the posts that they were in response to & you may well understand why a certain amount of irritation is creeping in.

 

Then by all means come back & explain how I am 'mistaken' & 'out of my depth' when at no time have I ever tried to explain any ones philosophy accept my own.

 

People who keep on insisting that their view of someone elses beliefs should take precedent over that persons own views are the ones who are mistaken & out of their depth.

 

Others offered you the benefit of their considerable knowledge and erudition and in a perfectly reasonable and acceptable way hoped to let you know that the philosophical picture is actually much more nuanced that you appreciate.

 

Your response to that offer has been dismissive, disrespectful, arrogant and immature and has seen you cling to ignorance as though it were a badge of honour. In case you seek to deny that evaluation of events it it all too apparent in the posts of yours I quoted above.

 

Your lack of understanding of the issues presented to you is one thing (we all have areas where our understanding can be improved with a little kindly offered knowledge), your unwillingness to even entertain them is another and it is that, ultimately, that places you out of your depth.

[barleycorn]

Agnostic. OED.=a person who BELIEVES that one cannot know whether or not God exists.

 

Any explanation for that apparent discrepancy there?

 

Agnostic, coined by TH Huxley:

"one who professes that the existence of a First Cause and the essential nature of things are not and cannot be known" [Klein]; coined by T.H. Huxley (1825-1895), supposedly in September 1869, from Greek agnostos "unknown, unknowable," from a- "not" + gnostos "(to be) known" (see gnostic).

Gnostic:

"relating to knowledge," 1650s, from Greek gnostikos "knowing, able to discern," from gnostos "known, perceived, understood," from gignoskein "to learn, to come to know"

Any more questions?

 

jb

[RootsBooster]

No, I neither believe nor disbelieve in Gods. Because you, apparently, are unable to handle that concept does not mean that others are also unable to do so.

my view is pretty straightforward, until someone can prove the point either way, beyond doubt ,the juries out.

Should the Heavens open one morning & a fiery chariot emerge, my thoughts would be ' Oh look at that, those Theists were right after all, wonder which particular denomination gets the prize?'

 

On the other hand, should Science achieve an astounding breakthrough & prove beyond any doubt that no God exists then my thoughts would be ' That's going to upset a few people, wonder what all them Priests, Vicars,Rabbi's etc are going to do for a living now'?

 

Either way it isn't going to effect me as I had no dog in the fight.

Well, obviously, if it's the first result & the old fella's not best pleased with what we've been up to it might

 

...which brings us back to the other part of your problem - not only do you not understand that your position of knowing (or not) does not replace a position of believing (or not), you also don't seem to understand the difference between a belief and an absence of belief.

 

Please tell me if you understand the difference between these two statements;

 

A) I do not believe in any gods

 

B) I believe that there are no gods

 

and, no, it's not a case of semantics, they mean two different things.