16 Jan 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNarrow definition of atheism?!?! It is you who is trying to use the narrowest definition possible. My definition is quite broad.
Not sure why you are so insistent (although I have an idea) in framing the discussion in such sparse terms, when it has been demonstrated repeatedly how atheism lies in the arena of thought.
You want something exhaustive and exclusive? How about 'alive' and 'dead?' Those are pretty exhaustive, either/or and exclusive, right?
Does the infant know wh ...[text shortened]... sm--- one which takes a sliver and rejects the tree--- that the word itself becomes meaningless.
16 Jan 14
Originally posted by Paul Dirac IIOriginally posted by Paul Dirac II
A question back at you--
Of the 186 known bodies in the solar system, how many do you expect have life on them if an Almighty Being tuned parameters to maximize fertility of planets and moons?
If He is batting 0.005, is that good enough? (That is 1 out of 186, which might well be the actual fraction.)
A question back at you--
Of the 186 known bodies in the solar system, how many do you expect have life on them if an Almighty Being tuned parameters to maximize fertility of planets and moons?
If He is batting 0.005, is that good enough? (That is 1 out of 186, which might well be the actual fraction.)
Hi, Paul. Sorry but I'm not qualified to even speculate on alternative solar system hypotheticals.
16 Jan 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyThe definition is nothing new. The Baron d'Holbach was arguing that babies were atheists in the 18th century.
[b]"Are Babies Atheists?"
"For a long time, the word "atheism" has been defined as the view that there is no God--i.e., the claim "God does not exist.
More recently, some atheists have begun to define atheism as simply a lack of belief in the existence of God. On this view, a person would be an atheist if he thought there is no God, thought it ...[text shortened]... atural, or default belief concerning God is." http://www.strangenotions.com/are-babies-atheists/[/b]
16 Jan 14
Originally posted by rwingettThe texture of this segment of our conversation feels like getting lost blindfolded in a jungle of word differences without significant distinctions. At God consciousness the volition of all human beings flashes either red lights or green. If green, it's God's responsibility to provide gospel [good news] information regarding Christ's Person and Work which made possible the Grace Gift of Salvation and Relationship with Him: sharing His Happiness in time and for eternity. Red lights, God has no further obligation to those who choose isolation from Him (though He waits patience for a change of mind). Choice is yours.
If you do not self-identify as a theist (at any age) then you are an atheist. Only an explicit atheist requires self-identification. An implicit atheist is the default status of anyone incapable of self-identification.
I can keep repeating this in slightly different forms for as long as you like.
16 Jan 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyYour problem is in insisting that there are "two lights" (to use your phrase). Green for theism and Red for atheism. That's not how it is at all. There is only one light. The Green light of theism. There is no light for atheism (red or otherwise). There is only a lack of lights. If you can't see the Green light of theism, it doesn't matter whether you're just looking in the wrong place or whether you're blind. You're still an atheist.
The texture of this segment of our conversation feels like getting lost blindfolded in a jungle of word differences without significant distinctions. At God consciousness the volition of all human beings flashes either red lights or green. If green, it's God's responsibility to provide gospel [good news] information regarding Christ's Person and Work wh ...[text shortened]... who choose isolation from Him (though He waits patience for a change of mind). Choice is yours.
I hope the tortured metaphor helps.
16 Jan 14
Originally posted by rwingettI understand that you are attempting to color atheism as something other than what it is, i.e., a rationale.
The infant doesn't understand, which makes him an implicit atheist. The question is...do you understand that point, or not? You obviously don't agree with it, but I have my doubts as to whether you even understand it.
No one can be called either theist or atheist who cannot think on the question.
You may as well call the sperm in my left testicle atheist while that which rests in my right is the theist!
16 Jan 14
One of the OP's questions mentions endangered species.
It has been estimated that 99.9% of all species that have lived on Earth are now extinct.
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2007/09/999-of-all-species-have-gone-extinct.html
Does that number suggest a loving deity carefully watching over Creation? Do you agree that most of those extinctions happened before there were any Homo sapiens, such that most extinctions cannot be blamed on us? If the blame is not on us, who is it on?
16 Jan 14
Originally posted by Paul Dirac IIOriginally posted by Grampy Bobby (OP)
One of the OP's questions mentions endangered species.
It has been estimated that 99.9% of all species that have lived on Earth are now extinct.
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2007/09/999-of-all-species-have-gone-extinct.html
Does that number suggest a loving deity carefully watching over Creation? Do you agree that most of those extinctions happ ...[text shortened]... ens, such that most extinctions cannot be blamed on us? If the blame is not on us, who is it on?
"Twelve Questions to Ask an Atheist" ["Some of these obviously involve multiple questions…"]
1. Does the universe have a beginning that requires a cause? If so, what was this cause?
2. Is materialistic determinism compatible with the intrinsically probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics?
3. How do you account for the physical parameters of the universe (the gravitational constant, the strong nuclear force, the mass and charge of a proton, etc.) being finely tuned for the existence of stars, planets, and life?
4. Why is the human mind naturally fluent in the language of mathematics, and how do you explain the eerie, seemingly unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in describing the laws of nature?
5. Do you believe that DNA repair mechanisms, catalytically perfect enzymes, and phenomena such as substrate channeling are best explained by naturalism? If so, why are rational human scientists and engineers so woefully incapable of imitating the precision and complexity of cellular machinery that (presumably) arose via strictly irrational processes?
6. Do you believe free will to be illusory? If so, can the punishment of crimes be ethically justified (and does the word “ethical” have any real meaning)?
7. Does objective morality exist? If so, what is its source…and how do you define “objective”? If not, do you concede that concepts like “justice”, “fairness”, and “equality” are nothing more than social fads, and that acts of violence and oppression must be regarded merely as differences of opinion?
8. In what terms do you define the value of human life? Is the life of a human child more or less valuable, for example, than that of an endangered species of primate?
9. Much attention has been given to alleged cognitive biases and “wishful thinking” contributing to religious belief. Do you believe that similar biases (for example, the desire for moral autonomy) play a role in religious nonbelief? If not, what specifically makes atheism immune to these influences?
10. Do you believe religion (speaking generally) has had a net positive or a net negative effect on humanity? If the latter, how do you explain the prevalence of religion in evolutionary terms?
11. Is it rational for you to risk your life to save a stranger?*
12. How would you begin to follow Jesus if it became clear to you that Christianity was true? What would be the hardest adjustment you would have to make to live a faithful, public Christian life?* *Questions 11 and 12 are taken from a similar list on Wintery Knight. http://wellspentjourney.wordpress.com/2012/07/08/twelve-questions-to-ask-an-atheist-2/
Originally posted by Paul Dirac IIOriginally posted by Paul Dirac II
One of the OP's questions mentions endangered species.
It has been estimated that 99.9% of all species that have lived on Earth are now extinct.
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2007/09/999-of-all-species-have-gone-extinct.html
Does that number suggest a loving deity carefully watching over Creation? Do you agree that most of those extinctions happ ...[text shortened]... ens, such that most extinctions cannot be blamed on us? If the blame is not on us, who is it on?
One of the OP's questions mentions endangered species.
It has been estimated that 99.9% of all species that have lived on Earth are now extinct.
http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2007/09/999-of-all-species-have-gone-extinct.html
Does that number suggest a loving deity carefully watching over Creation? Do you agree that most of those extinctions happened before there were any Homo sapiens, such that most extinctions cannot be blamed on us? If the blame is not on us, who is it on?
_________________________________________
8. "In what terms do you define the value of human life? Is the life of a human child more or less valuable, for example, than that of an endangered species of primate?" (OP)
> Paul, since you appreciate irreducible simplicity: yes; yes; and nobody [it's not a blame game]. The preservation of the universe and the earth (including plant life, animal life, stability of the environment, components of the atmosphere and the human race itself depends entirely on the veracity, omnipotence and immutability of the incomparable Jesus Christ:
"13. For He rescued us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son, 14. in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. 15. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16. For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through Him and for Him. 17. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. 18. He is also head of the body, the church; and He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He Himself will come to have first place in everything. 19. For it was the Father’s good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, 20. and through Him to reconcile all things to Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross; through Him, I say, whether things on earth or things in heaven. 21. And although you were formerly alienated and hostile in mind, engaged in evil deeds, 22. yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach- 23. if indeed you continue in [ad]the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister." (1 Colossians 1; 13-23)
"1 God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2. in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. 3. And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4. having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they." (Hebrews 1: 1-4)
> The reason for His preservation of the universe is to resolve the pre-historic angelic conflict in human history. "9. But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone. 10. For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings. 11. For both He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from one Father; for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren." (Hebrews 2: 9-10) New American Standard Bible
16 Jan 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI am attempting to define atheism exactly as it is - as non-theism. Everyone who is not a theist is, by default, an atheist. I have no motives beyond clarifying the word definition. You, on the other hand, helplessly flail against my definition precisely because you impute more to my motives than is warranted. Your intransigence is rooted in politics, not semantics.
I understand that you are attempting to color atheism as something other than what it is, i.e., a rationale.
No one can be called either theist or atheist who cannot think on the question.
You may as well call the sperm in my left testicle atheist while that which rests in my right is the theist!
Originally posted by rwingettI have just been looking up the definition of the 'a' prefix. In all the sites I have gone to it is defined (in the context of words like amoral, aseptic, abiotic, asexual, atrophy, atheist, apolitical) as simply 'not' or 'without'.
I am attempting to define atheism exactly as it is - as non-theism. Everyone who is not a theist is, by default, an atheist. I have no motives beyond clarifying the word definition. You, on the other hand, helplessly flail against my definition precisely because you impute more to my motives than is warranted. Your intransigence is rooted in politics, not semantics.
http://www.prefixsuffix.com/rootchart.php
http://www.prefixsuffix.com/rootchart.php
http://www.englishclub.com/vocabulary/prefixes.htm
http://www.macroevolution.net/biology-prefixes-a.html#.UtfKXPvmyzg
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_the_prefix_a_mean?#slide=4
And this is also the meaning understood by the majority of people who use it and that RWingett, GoogleFudge, et al are using.
I did find one site that could possibly include GB's interpretation: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/a has it meaning Not; Without or Opposite To. But really, the opposite of 'having belief in a deity' is simply not having a belief in a deity. Newborns still count.
Grampy Bobby is effectively saying that the word 'fruit' means 'apple' and telling us we are wrong to say that pears are also fruit.
I think the issue is that theists do not like the fact that the term 'atheist' encompasses not only the default position of newborns, but also the stronger position of people like Dawkins and Hitchins, the anti-theists, if you like. But the fact remains that the term does describe both of those positions.
--- Penguin.
16 Jan 14
Originally posted by PenguinA good place to start would be Wikipedia's article on atheism.
I have just been looking up the definition of the 'a' prefix. In all the sites I have gone to it is defined (in the context of words like amoral, aseptic, abiotic, asexual, atrophy, atheist, apolitical) as simply 'not' or 'without'.
http://www.prefixsuffix.com/rootchart.php
http://www.prefixsuffix.com/rootchart.php
http://www.englishclub.com/vocabulary/ ...[text shortened]... like. But the fact remains that the term does describe both of those positions.
--- Penguin.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
There is much useful information there. Including a nice diagram detailing the relationship between implicit, explicit, and hard atheism.
For tactical reasons theists basically only want to argue against hard atheists, and so therefore try to keep the definition of atheism as narrow as possible. They want to frame atheism as being a positive claim in opposition to theirs, and not simply as the absence of theistic claims.
16 Jan 14
Originally posted by PenguinSemantic quibbling over ~the 'a' prefix~ is by no means a dead end; it's a closed loop going nowhere which is a place no one wishes or needs to go. Net: an individual 'not' having a personal relationship with or 'without' a personal relationship with God is in this unfortunate dilemma by choice; and will be separated from God and unable to share His Perfect Happiness for e t e r n i t y. The sententious observation of another atheist who changed his mind about the reality of God and the desirability of knowing Him would have attitude and bite for me if I was an avowed atheist: "There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.'" -Clive S. Lewis
I have just been looking up the definition of the 'a' prefix. In all the sites I have gone to it is defined (in the context of words like amoral, aseptic, abiotic, asexual, atrophy, atheist, apolitical) as simply 'not' or 'without'.
http://www.prefixsuffix.com/rootchart.php
http://www.prefixsuffix.com/rootchart.php
http://www.englishclub.com/vocabulary/ ...[text shortened]... like. But the fact remains that the term does describe both of those positions.
--- Penguin.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
16 Jan 14
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyWould you like to try again, but not in gibberish this time?
Semantic quibbling over ~the 'a' prefix~ is by no means a dead end; it's a closed loop going nowhere which is a place no one wishes or needs to go. Net: an individual 'not' having a personal relationship with or 'without' a personal relationship with God is in this unfortunate dilemma by choice; and will be separated from God and unable to ...[text shortened]... will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.'" -Clive S. Lewis
Try doing it 'without' your 'personal style' and see how it turns out.