Fed up of non believers

[ivanava]

Let's cut to the chase shall we? I notice no one has attempted to answer the three questions above?

 

Because none of you can, and the inability to do so shows the nonsense which you have been posting up for exactly what it is, nonsense.

 

Professor Rowe specialises in the philosophy of religion. His work has been acknowledged as being a major factor in the revival of analytic philosophy of religion since the 1970s.

 

His most notable contribution was his formulation of 'Evidential Argument from Evil.'

 

He received a Master of Divinity degree from Chicago Theological Seminary and later a Ph.D in philosophy from Michigan University.

 

He started off as an Evangelical Christian and originally planned to be a Minister.

 

Through the course of his long life - he is now 82 he gradually changed and is now an atheist.

 

He introduced the concept of the 'friendly atheist' in one of his papers.

 

Obviously, he never met any of you lot.

 

The point is that this man spent his life working on the subject we have been discussing.

 

His description of agnostic describes my belief exactly.

 

Unless you can answer the above three questions satisfactorily, or produce an equally qualified authority to contradict his definition, then as far as I'm concerned the matter has been decided.

 

Professor William L Rowe's description of agnostic is wrong, if you don't believe then by definition you disbelieve.

 

Disbelieving don't mean you believe god doesn't exist, it just mean you are unable to believe that it does exist.

 

Disbelieve

Be unable to believe:

Edited March 2, 2014 by ivanava

[mjw47]

Professor William L Rowe's description of agnostic is wrong.

 

And your qualifications in the field he has spent his entire career working in, are precisely what?

[ivanava]

And your qualifications in the field he has spent his entire career working in, are precisely what?

 

If you don't believe then you disbelieve, you can't believe and disbelieve at the same time.

 

Professor William L Rowe has described his conversion from Christian fundamentalist to, ultimately, an atheist as a gradual process, resulting from "the lack of experiences and evidence sufficient to sustain my religious life and my religious convictions."

 

Professor of Philosophy William Rowe famously coined the terms, “friendly atheist,” “indifferent atheist,” and “unfriendly atheist.”[1] What did he mean by these terms?

 

unfriendly atheist: an atheist who believes no one is justified in believing that the theistic God exists

indifferent atheist: an atheist who holds no belief concerning whether any theist is or is not rationally justified in believing that the theistic God exists

friendly atheist: an atheist who believes that some theists are rationally justified in believing the theistic God exists

Edited March 2, 2014 by ivanava

[RootsBooster]

It's pretty clear if you read the relevant posts, that ivanava is equating disbelief with an absence of belief. I think probed was in agreement with that position too.

 

[/Quote]Well, I have asked several times if you could show me the relevant posts. I've read back through the posts you responded to but I can't see it.

Believe me, I'm not one to back Smiffy for the fun of it, but if you're going to make such assumptions bout him you might do it with anyone

I can't think of any way of thinking about or reducing god in to a concept or set of mental constructs, and not loosing the essence of what it is you're trying to grasp or define.

 

Are you making an assumption that such things are definable and that they can be accurately rendered in to words or concepts?

 

One could argue (I won't) that it's like trying to fit the entire ocean in to a thimble; all the thimble knows is the thimble and what's in it. When it is full of ocean, it then draws conclusions regarding the size of the ocean, based on the drop of water it contains. It is wholly inadequate to the task of considering the scope of reality beyond it's own context.

should I take that as a no?

 

Because this little finger of the pope, I presume, has no believe in god.

 

Although "atheist" is a term that applies to human beings, you could call a body part an atheist if you really wanted to, it wouldn't have the slightest effect on the fact that somebody without any belief in gods is an atheist.

[Lockjaw]

it's becoming a bit boring now so I am going to go and do something else after one more post.

 

... and then followed three more posts. More self contradiction.

 

You are confused, mjw. Don't be afraid of this; deal with it. Throw off the shackles of your indoctrination and cry out: Gouranga! Eureka! I'm an atheist and I never realised!

 

Nobody will think any the worse of you for this. Some, myself included, will even feel a little contrite because we will have been proven wrong in our belief that your self delusion was unassailable.

[Waldo]

I can't believe you can't see it roots. It's as plain as day to me. They keep saying "by definition if you don't believe, you disbelief".

 

I am saying that disbelief is an action (the dictionary definition backs me up on that point), it is an activity of mind. Whereas, a lack of belief is not an action, it is the absence of (the mental activity of) belief.

 

I don't see how I can be any clearer. Am I being unclear! or not making sense?

 

Let's forget about the pope finger thing...

 

---------- Post added 02-03-2014 at 23:02 ----------

 

... and then followed three more posts. More self contradiction.

 

You are confused, mjw. Don't be afraid of this; deal with it. Throw off the shackles of your indoctrination and cry out: Gouranga! Eureka! I'm an atheist and I never realised!

 

Nobody will think any the worse of you for this. Some, myself included, will even feel a little contrite because we will have been proven wrong in our belief that your self delusion was unassailable.

 

Wow, you add a lot to the debate! ;-)

[Lockjaw]

 

 

Wow, you add a lot to the debate! ;-)

 

Cheers Waldo.

 

What's your opinion on the gradual development of the conditions on Earth which ultimately led to the development of life and my thesis on the inevitability of such as described at various points on this thread?

[salsafan]

... and then followed three more posts. More self contradiction.

 

You are confused, mjw. Don't be afraid of this; deal with it. Throw off the shackles of your indoctrination and cry out: Gouranga! Eureka! I'm an atheist and I never realised!

 

Nobody will think any the worse of you for this. Some, myself included, will even feel a little contrite because we will have been proven wrong in our belief that your self delusion was unassailable.

This is what I am afraid of, and what the OP is afraid of. People should not BE afraid of others.

 

Basically you are trying to label mjw, and he is not taking this lightly. Well, to be honest, nor will I if I was in his shoes.

[Waldo]

Cheers Waldo.

 

What's your opinion on the gradual development of the conditions on Earth which ultimately led to the development of life and my thesis on the inevitability of such as described at various points on this thread?

 

I haven't read your posts. Why are you interested in my opinion?

[salsafan]

I know that God does not exist, and have all the proof I need, therefor I am atheist.

When my children were born they had no knowledge of God or belief in God they were also atheists.

My parents know that God exists and have all the proof they need, so they are theists, if you are not a theist then you must be an atheist, even though you are unaware of this fact.

 

I wrote before that some of you have a "deductive" mind, right ? The above demonstrates precisely that. You seem to think that other people also see the world as an "either" "or" way, but I am also siding with those others on this thread who is saying, "no, this is not the only way".

 

I presume that you know spirituality, and religion is not limited to language itself, right ?

 

When your children are born, they are born without knowledge or language, but it does not mean they are without spirituality. It is an intuition.

 

If one is certain that they are not a theist, then it does not automatically means that they are an atheist. It seems to me that, in your mind, of whatever information and knowledge you hold, need to pigeonhole him into a particular position. THIS Is what he is fighting you on. He already stated that he is "neither this, nor that". He just "is" right now. And who can challenge a man about his belief than he himself ? Surely it is his choice, and not for you to judge what he is, but for him to tell you who he is ? I do not understand why you must give him a label. Which is the whole point of social antagonism, and the kind that the OP is speaking of.

 

If he says that "My name is Mike, and I am a believer", then just accept it. Why the need to challenge this ? There can be a grey area of non-conclusion, or non-definitive and limiting position to hold.

 

The analogy is like, I say I am a woman, I have the attributes of a woman, but you keep labelling me that I am not because you found out that I work in IT say, which is a man's career. So these two pieces of premise do not add together, and you think that this is not then true or plausible or possible. How about just acknowledging them separately for what it is? It does not have to link together.

 

It's like that experiment with Dr Emoto. He did literally said a blessing. Those sound waves did hit that area and its environment. The lake did then change and life did grow from that place for the first time in many years. Do I conclude that he is Jesus, or a reincarnation of Jesus? No. But, those things that he did, those are true premises and true facts. There does not have to be a theory to link it all sometimes, although it seems that you are more comfortable in knowing if that is the case.