Atheism or antitheism?

[Achilles]

Just because he never heard of The King doesn't mean he never existed.

Whether or not he existed in completely irrelevant to the point, considering that Elvis is merely being used as an example.

 

If someone is born and lives their entire life without ever hearing of Elvis (i.e. died before the 1950's, lives in a third world country, is dead, blind, and mute, dies of SIDS at age 2, etc) then they will never have had a belief, one way or another, regarding the possibility that Elvis' death was faked.

[Nancy Allen``]

Would you care to explain to me exactly how his existence is irrelevent? The fact that he did and the topic is on whether or not people know about him would give credibility to his existence would make it most relevent, wouldn't it?

[Achilles]

Would you care to explain to me exactly how his existence is irrelevent? The fact that he did and the topic is on whether or not people know about him would give credibility to his existence would make it most relevent, wouldn't it?

Because the topic is natural states and belief. Elvis is an example, not the topic.

[Jae Onasi]

Actually, the natural state is one of abject ignorance (ie tabula rasa). Atheism, as many of you cling to it, is not in fact a natural state, but one whereupon you've come to a conclusion that there is insufficient material evidence to underpin anything resembling a rational postion backing the existence of a supernatural being. You might as well say that we're amathematical (asocial, etc..) at birth as well. If you wish to equate atheism w/abject ignorance, I'll not argue with you.

 

Heh....

 

I would agree that you have to make a conscious decision one way or another on belief. Babies don't have the capacity to believe or not believe--they're not cognitively developed enough to understand. Lack of knowledge does not equate with lack of belief. You have to know what you're choosing to disbelieve, after all.

 

Because the topic is natural states and belief. Elvis is an example, not the topic.

True. If anyone wants to talk Elvis, it'd be better to start a thread on that in Ahto.

[Totenkopf]

Does that mean that Elvis has left this building?

[PoiuyWired]

Well Yeah the whole Evlis thing is just a more "Daily life" example for the topic.

 

But yes, the point is, you have to understand/misunderstand an idea inorder to have a believe/disbelieve on the idea.

 

To use a more silly example here is an idea "In Antartica, People Eat only Snow"

 

To have an opinion of anything about this statement the idea of "Antartica" and "Snow" have to be understood/misunderstood. If not, then the "natural state" for believe on such a statement would be Nullity/undefined.

 

So yes, The DEFINITION of God have to be understood/misunderstood before one can be called a Theist/Atheist, otherwise its jut Ignorance.

[Achilles]

Babies don't have the capacity to believe or not believe--they're not cognitively developed enough to understand.

What would you call them then?

 

Lack of knowledge does not equate with lack of belief.

So you can believe something you don't know about?

 

You have to know what you're choosing to disbelieve, after all.

And before that you'd be in a natural state, wouldn't you? In other words, where would you be before you made a choice?

 

But yes, the point is, you have to understand/misunderstand an idea inorder to have a believe/disbelieve on the idea.

No doubt. But how would label a lack of belief? It's not the same thing as a disbelief.

 

So yes, The DEFINITION of God have to be understood/misunderstood before one can be called a Theist/Atheist, otherwise its jut Ignorance.

Considering that no one can prove that god exists, let alone consistently define him, it would seem that you'd categorize theists as ignorant.

[Jae Onasi]

Jae, you have a communist doctrine that promotes violent revolution and persecution of theism. Until you can I identify an atheist doctrine that also promotes these values, your argument is completely without merit.

 

 

I provided you specific and direct proof that these men's stated intent was to eliminate religion, with any means necessary. They were atheists who committed great injustice. You must be atheist in order to be communist; the two are entirely inseparable. Your separation of atheism from communism is entirely artificial and false.

 

With your logic, then the Crusades were nothing more than a war to establish trade routes and build territories that happened to be OK'd by a religious organization. Blame therefore cannot be placed on religion.

 

You can't have it both ways.

[Achilles]

I provided you specific and direct proof that these men's stated intent was to eliminate religion, with any means necessary.

I remember you saying that. What you've yet to do is tie either of these events to an atheistic doctrine. Considering that there isn't one, this is going to be a huge obstacle for your argument.

 

They were atheists who committed great injustice. You must be atheist in order to be communist; the two are entirely inseparable. Your separation of atheism from communism is entirely artificial and false.

Even if I were to accept this as true, I don't know what bearing it would have on the conversation. There are communist communities in existence today that don't starve each other to death.

 

The actions of these men were consistent with dogmatic regimes of every shape, size, and flavor. You seem to be purposely ignoring the obvious and supportable causal relationship in some sort of desparate attempt to convince us that we should adopt a perspective not supported by a causal relationship. What is your motive for this, Jae?

 

With your logic, then the Crusades were nothing more than a war to establish trade routes and build territories that happened to be OK'd by a religious organization. Blame therefore cannot be placed on religion.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The Crusades were expeditions undertaken, in fulfilment of a solemn vow, to deliver the Holy Places from Mohammedan tyranny.

<snip>

Since the Middle Ages the meaning of the word crusade has been extended to include all wars undertaken in pursuance of a vow, and directed against infidels, i.e. against Mohammedans, pagans, heretics, or those under the ban of excommunication.

<snip>

The idea of the crusade corresponds to a political conception which was realized in Christendom only from the eleventh to the fifteenth century; this supposes a union of all peoples and sovereigns under the direction of the popes. All crusades were announced by preaching. After pronouncing a solemn vow, each warrior received a cross from the hands of the pope or his legates, and was thenceforth considered a soldier of the Church. Crusaders were also granted indulgences and temporal privileges, such as exemption from civil jurisdiction, inviolability of persons or lands, etc. Of all these wars undertaken in the name of Christendom, the most important were the Eastern Crusades, which are the only ones treated in this article.

From wikipedia:

The Crusades were a series of military conflicts of a religious character waged by Christians during 1095–1291, most of which were sanctioned by the Pope in the name of Christendom. The Crusades originally had the goal of recapturing Jerusalem and the sacred "Holy Land" from Muslim rule and were originally launched in response to a call from the Eastern Orthodox Byzantine Empire for help against the expansion of the Muslim Seljuq dynasty into Anatolia.

<snip>

The term is also used to describe contemporaneous and subsequent campaigns conducted through to the 16th century in territories outside the Levant, usually against pagans, those considered by the Catholic Church to be heretics, and peoples under the ban of excommunication for a mixture of religious, economic, and political reasons.

So we have a (series of) religious war(s), sanctioned by religious leaders, with prescendent set in a religious text. In other words we have a causal relationship.

[PoiuyWired]

Considering that no one can prove that god exists, let alone consistently define him, it would seem that you'd categorize theists as ignorant.

 

Well, as long as either they think that "god", rationally or otherwise, then they are not ignorant. Obviously the definition of individual may vary, and be it reasonable/unreasonable, or defined by other merky concept like "faith" and what not, or even some kind of flawed logical deduction, or even conspiracy theory...

 

It does not matter, an incomplete/unaccurate definition is still a definition of sorts.

[Achilles]

Well, as long as either they think that "god", rationally or otherwise, then they are not ignorant.

The truth is there is no rational argument for the existence of god. If there were, theists would have a much easier time debating atheists because then they would have credible arguments to use.

 

Obviously the definition of individual may vary, and be it reasonable/unreasonable, or defined by other merky concept like "faith" and what not, or even some kind of flawed logical deduction, or even conspiracy theory...

I'm not sure that I follow. Would you mind taking another stab at this part?

 

It does not matter, an incomplete/unaccurate definition is still a definition of sorts.

That might be true, but this is quickly reduced to nonsense using the old saw "garbage in/garbage out". In other words any explation that invokes god is only as good as our understanding of what he/she/it is. Since this understanding has no objectivity, let alone evidence, whatsoever, any explanation is so subjective that is essentially useless (hence why scientists reject such explanations).

 

The truth is that our current concept of god is a god of the gaps. As the gaps are eliminated the places in which he/she/it can hide are similiarly eliminated. Futhermore, each gap taken away reduces his/her/its power and therefore makes he/she/it less necessary.