Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
Atheist Penelope
KeepACoolin:
--- Quote from: chronoplasm on 01 Sep 2009, 15:36 ---
--- Quote from: KeepACoolin on 31 Aug 2009, 17:29 ---
You're twisting the meaning of the word. Atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings (Random House dictionary). Denying the existence of God is a part of what distinguishes atheism from agnosticism. Lack of belief is not the same as disbelief, which is why agnosticism is not the same as atheism.
--- End quote ---
Use of the word has changed over time from the original greek atheos which was not used to describe a philosophical or religious position but as a pejorative to refer to someone who believed in false gods. If you look in any dictionary, you may find that as the definition, or you might find the definition you provided, or you might find any other definition that you like.
You might also look up the words evolution or God and find any number of vastly different and definitions for each. It all depends on context and who you ask. For example, the term God may refer to:
The one supreme being.
One of several other divine beings.
An image, or idol.
Something that is worshipped or idealized (such as money).
Nature, or the universe (in the sense that Einstein used the word).
The thing you have to understand about dictionaries is that they are descriptive, not prescriptive.
It's perfectly acceptable to say that an atheist is simply someone who does not believe in the possibility of gods. Now, that does entail the belief that there are no gods, but that is not the be all end all of the definition.
I don't believe there are no gods, I just don't believe in gods. I don't believe that gods are possible, but that is not the same as believing that gods are impossible. It's all a matter of positive claims versus negative claims.
--- End quote ---
All of which makes you agnostic, rather than atheist. And since the Christianization of Europe, "atheist" has been primarily used to describe someone who disbelieves in the existence of God- various theologians accused their opponents of atheism during the Medieval and Renaissance periods, which is essentially where the modern usage originated. There was also an Athenian (I can't remember who right now) who was exiled for atheism in the modern sense.
Lack of belief combined with lack of disbelief results in doubt or suspended judgment, both of which are characteristic of agnosticism as opposed to atheism. Atheism entails active disbelief.
Is it cold in here?:
Pennelope was unambiguous about where she stands.
KeepACoolin:
--- Quote from: Scarblac on 01 Sep 2009, 00:05 ---I believe in God just as much as I believe in Asdfsoooxzm. And in other gods, for that matter.
If that belief makes me an atheist, why do people keep arguing with stuff like "A-ha! But you can't prove He doesn't exist!" when exactly the same is true of Asdfsoooxzm, and they're trying to convince me my belief in God should be different from my belief in Asdfsoooxzm?
--- End quote ---
This is the point where I am almost always disappointed with atheists. Why do you have to resort to what is in essence a veiled ad hominem attack instead of at least approaching the issue with some sort of dignity? I think it worth pointing out that some of the most brilliant minds in history not only believed in a God but in fact the same God that I do. Now, you might argue that they did not know about evolution, but I do and I don't think it is even relevant to the existence of God- why should knowing exactly how a creature developed necessarily solve the question of why it developed? Given that I- and any number of other theists- adopt this position, the most relevant atheistic arguments must be philosophical and universal. These are questions that have always existed. Do you think that Dante didn't know about the problem of evil? Do you think that Milton was unaware that life can seem random? Do you think that Augustine, who lived in a jaded and cynical society, was unfamiliar with any number of philosophical arguments for a purely naturalistic universe?
The answer is "no," which begs the question of why you must insult some of the most brilliant philosophical, literary, and even scientific minds (Newton, in some sense Einstein- and Jonathan Edwards was a leading biologist and physicist for his time) by equating their belief with belief in something "unicorn-colored?" Do you really think you're this much smarter than people who are still regarded as some of the great geniuses of human history?
The sad part, to me, is that there can be dignity and pathos in really well done atheistic arguments. I am willing to accept the basic validity of the atheistic position- I can see that someone could believe in it and not be, as a result, a fool. Please return the favor: don't be quite so quick to dismiss the people who laid the foundations of this civilization. Please be willing to at least entertain the notion that a theistic worldview is not inherently retarded. Thank you.
Delirium:
Many of the most brialliant minds in history believed in phlogiston, the flat-earth theory, the geocrentric and heliocentric theories of the cosmos, luminferous aether, orgone, basilisks, phrenology, lamarckian evolution, telegony, the continents of Atlantis, Lemuria, and Thule, need I go on?
KeepACoolin:
--- Quote from: Delirium on 01 Sep 2009, 22:30 ---Many of the most brialliant minds in history believed in phlogiston, the flat-earth theory, the geocrentric and heliocentric theories of the cosmos, luminferous aether, orgone, basilisks, phrenology, lamarckian evolution, telegony, the continents of Atlantis, Lemuria, and Thule, need I go on?
--- End quote ---
Since ancient Greece, the educated classes have been aware of the spherical earth. Geocentrism and heliocentrism belong to the same class of ideas as evolution (i.e., no bearing on the question of God's existence) as does the flat earth and- well- everything else you've listed. My point is this: Darwinian evolution is the only recent development that could change the landscape, so to speak, from what applied to the men I mentioned. And Darwinian evolution in no way precludes the existence of God.
Actually, that's not entirely true- quantum physics might be a real challenge to God's existence, as it might invalidate the Prime Cause. If you care to discuss a quantum physics-related argument against the existence of God, I am more than happy to admit that you have a valid and reasonable platform. I would disagree with it, but I would admit its rationality. I think the same could be said of theism. There is no science except quantum physics that in any way challenges the fundamental assumptions of a theistic worldview (that there must be a First Cause). It is as rational to assume, on philosophical grounds, that matter is capable of self-generation as it is to assume that there is a self-existent cause behind matter. One or the other must be true.
Besides which, my main point was that atheists can be self-sabotaging with their "unicorn-colored" or "flying spaghetti monster" ideas. Those are far more applicable to pagan religions- I think Thor is as inherently goofy as just about anything you could come up with, and Quetzlcoatl too. But Christians have thought that for two thousand years, and Jews for longer than that. The fact is that the belief in an omnipotent deity is more reasonable than the belief in any random god. Call monotheism untrue, call it unsubstantiated, but don't call it patently ridiculous. Bring that up to the Dionysian cults, or the worshipers of Wotan (the Nazis, for instance). Don't bring it up to the believers in Yahweh.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version