There's a big difference between 'unintended' and 'lacks intention'.

lobawad wrote:

Mick wrote:

Fallible wrote:I did. Using first ''in'' and then ''of'' doesn't make a difference.

Serious?

On atheism, there is no purpose of human life. By this I simply mean that human life is an accident without meaning. Given our freedom and self-consciousness, we can recognize that fact but still make purpose in our life. That is, we can create our own purpose in life. But that fact wouldn't change the previous fact; it wouldn't change the purposelessness of our existence.

I don't give a shit about my "existence", whatever that might even mean. I live, not "exist". My life is so loaded with purpose that sometimes I don't even know where to start. But that in and of itself is neither good nor bad. Serial killers "have a purpose", too. "Purpose" in and of itself is not necessarily "good".

What if God's purpose is that you suffer and inflict as much suffering on others as much you possibly can in your life? Or, let's say that there is no God and you were designed by sadistic aliens for the same horrible purpose. Purposlessness from that perspective would be heaven itself.

Or, let's say there is a God who made us with "free will". Is there freedom without freedom of purpose? Would it not be wonderful of God to not shackle us with a purpose?

I think the real problem with having a debate with you would be that you have yet to display a minimum standard of theological thinking. That is, even if we were both to assume that there is a God, you would still be unqualified to do anything but preach and attempt to scoff and snear! So, when I get the time, I'll start a discussion on the proposition "God exists" with or without your participation.

The evaluation of there being purpose of human life is not an issue as of yet. The issue is simply whether there is such a purpose. And while readily grant that you have purpose in your life, that is, whatever purpose you make, it is irrelevant to whether there is purpose of human life. If you insist on just affirming that fact, you're begging the question.

Mick wrote:On the contrary: you need to learn what 'accident' can mean. Suppose I threw a ball across the street. Suppose further that the ball hits you in the face. I come over and state this:' That was kinda funny, but I didn't mean to do that- it was an accident! I am sorry.' When I call it an accident, I don't mean to deny physical mechanisms involved here; I am merely stating that the event of the ball hitting you was not my intention. When we call things or events accidents in this way, we do not deny that there are sustaining causes and the like for it; we are only stating that end result or consequence was unintended.

You and Cali impose straw men understandings to this word, and that much is quite obvious.

I think this is stretching it a bit, Mick. Your example has an intentional agent involved - the ball-thrower - and that's what makes it accidental, as opposed to a chance occurrence or something that is based solely on the laws of physics.

Mick wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Mick wrote:Put it this ways. Suppose jack and Sam have a conversation.

Jack: do you believe that a god exists, Sam?

Sam: I refuse to accept any supernatural claim uncritically.

Jack: thanks for sharing, Sam. So do you believe that a god exists, or not?

See the point? Nothing states or implies whether or not sam believes that god exists; and yet Cali would have us believe that sam just defined himself as an atheist.

Suppose instead that Jack and Sam have this conversation, using the historical approach:

Jack: Do you believe that a god exists, Sam?

Sam: The notion of gods was invented by illiterate goat-roasters who had no concept of the germ theory of disease.

Jack: The people who wrote down scriptures about gods were not illiterate.

Sam: From whom were they copying? Did they have a different set of gods because they could scribble?

See the point, Mick? Simply using the word 'god' does not require that a referent exists.

And nothing here tells us whether sam believes or not.

Oh, what fun if Sam believes in an incoherent concept invented by illiterate goat-roasters. That's the god you believe in, Mick, updated for modern times. Do you suggest that because the concept has been refined, it has anything to say about the existence of deities? What were those goat-roasters up to? Did they (as 'primitives') have better access to divinity? We know that argument, too.

Mick wrote:it is irrelevant to whether there is purpose of human life.

As far as I'm concerned, there isn't much difference in your belief that god exists and your belief that the universe has a purpose. They're just two ways of saying more or less the same thing. The notion of intention in the universe appeals to some people because then they don't have to use the word 'god'.

Calilasseia wrote:

Mick wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:

Mick wrote:


No: Cali offers something much different.

No I don't. Once again, since you missed it the first time I posted it, atheism in its rigorous formulation, consists of a refusal to accept uncritically unsupported supernaturalist assertions. In short, it consists of "YOU assert that your magic man exists, YOU support your assertions". It doesn't involve erecting any assertions, merely waiting for those who do to provide real evidence for theirs.

Now, in what fantasy parallel universe is this substantively different from THWOTH's rendering thereof?

Right: but notice that your definition of atheism does not suggest that he who is an atheist lacks a belief that a deity exists. Nothing stops an atheist from being a theist!

Poppycock.

What part of "refusing to accept uncritically unsupported supernaturalist assertions" did you not understand in my previous post?

Which, by definition, means rejecting belief itself as purportedly constituting a source of substantive knowledge. Because that's all 'belief' is, as practised by supernaturalists - uncritical acceptance of unsupported assertions, and the treatment thereof as purportedly constituting 'fact'. The wholesale rejection of belief itself renders your above assertion null and void.

Mick wrote:

OlivierK wrote:Except their refusal to accept unevidenced assertions regarding the supernatural, right?

Sure. But for someone who thought that they have good reasons to accept it, then he'd consider himself an atheist and a theist.

Except that acceptance of real evidence in support of a postulate does not constitute 'belief'. Once one has evidence to support a postulate, belief is superfluous to requirements and irrelevant. Since supernaturalists have failed singularly to provide any evidence for any of their assertions for 5,000 years, the point still stands.

Mick wrote:Take someone like Craig: he thinks he has great reasons to embrace theism. Is he an atheist?

No, because he thinks a magic man exists, and his 'reasons' for doing so are mere fabrications.

Mick wrote:Take a dumb person who tries his best to assess the evidence critically and comes to belief in god- an atheist?

No, because he still thinks a magic man exists, on the basis of failure to spot the canards surrounding said entity.

Mick wrote:Or how about someone who doesn't care about epistemic justification at all but just hasn't even heard of theism-an atheist?

Not if he thnks a mythological magic man exists.

Mick wrote:Cali's definition is such that he defines theism as insufficently evidenced

No, I explicitly state that theism has zero evidence supporting its assertions, and as a corollary, its assertions may be freely discarded. But please, don't let this stop you putting words into my mouth, in the all too familiar manner we see from supernaturalists.

Mick wrote:a question begging endeavour.

The only question arising from this is "where's the real evidence for your magic man?" Until you have some, no one is required to treat your assertions on this matter as purportedly constituting 'fact'. Apologetic fabrications don't count as "evidence".

Mick wrote:What is more, he forgot to mention anything about a lack of belief ?

See above, where I state that rejecting belief itself is a natural corollary of refusing to accept uncritically unsupported assertions. That I have to spell this out to you merely testifies to the vacuous,not to mention, duplicitous, nature of supernaturalist apologetics.

Mick wrote:Rigorous definition ? No. It is invites ridicule .

Oh, and "my magic man exists because my favourite mythology says so" doesn't invvite ridicule? Because that's all you have here.

Mick wrote:Put it this ways. Suppose jack and Sam have a conversation.

Jack: do you believe that a god exists, Sam?

Sam: I refuse to accept any supernatural claim uncritically.

Jack: thanks for sharing, Sam. So do you believe that a god exists, or not?

See the point? Nothing states or implies whether or not sam believes that god exists; and yet Cali would have us believe that sam just defined himself as an atheist.

You forgot the inevitable reply, namely:

Sam: As a corollary of what I've just said, I dispense with belief altogether, therefore your question is null and void. Until real evidence is presented supporting the assertion that a magic entity exists, said assertion is discardable.

But please, do continue your comedy posting of rhetorical legerdemain.

Ah, see that corollary Cali added? Here Sam states that he does, in fact, disregard the proposition. But notice that nothing within Cali's definition of atheism had such a thing. Thus, I take it that Cali see my point. He now needs to include that within his definition.

That aside, there are some weird positions here. Take the dumb person for whom I referred. He tried his best to critically assess the evidence; he was determined not to uncritically accept the supernatural claims of some theist. In the end, he thought theism made a good case; and so he believed. I pointed out that if atheism were just an insistence not to uncritically accept the claims of super naturalists, then this person would be a theist and an atheist. Cali denies this: he says that the dumb person just failed to see the canards. But here then Cali imposes external standards of critical assessment. It is not enough that this person tried his best; he must meet whatever standards imposed on to him by Cali. That is pretty fucked up.

But let us consider other scenarios. Consider that person who does not give a shift about critical reasoning-he just has not heard of theism. Thus, he does not believe that theism is true. Is he an atheist? Well, no. The original definition of an atheist offered by Cali is one that requires there to be a refusal to accept such claims uncritically. But here, on this scenario, there is no such refusal: he is an epistemic nihilist. Is he a atheist? Ordinarily, you folk would call him an atheist in virtue of his unbelief-but here you would need to disqualify that based upon his epistemic indifference.

Here's something even funnier. Suppose we have a fellow who knows of theism and does not believe in its claims. But suppose that he does not believe in its claims on the basis of ridiculously fallacious reasons, but yet he thinks that he is assessing the evidence with great critical analysis. He is kinda dumb, let us say. Now because Cali imposes external standards of critical analysis, it is not at all clear why this fellow would constitute an atheist. For just like the dumb theist we spoke of earlier, this fellow would not be meeting the external standard of critical analysis. Yet, he would actively not belief that a god exists.

Mick has a point, but then I never accepted Cali's definition of an atheist. An atheist is simply someone who lacks belief in god(s), and that is that. Nothing more need be said. An atheist can believe in astrology, leprechauns & angels, but if they also lack belief in god(s), they're an atheist.

chairman bill wrote:

Mick wrote:On the contrary: you need to learn what 'accident' can mean. Suppose I threw a ball across the street. Suppose further that the ball hits you in the face. I come over and state this:' That was kinda funny, but I didn't mean to do that- it was an accident! I am sorry.' When I call it an accident, I don't mean to deny physical mechanisms involved here; I am merely stating that the event of the ball hitting you was not my intention. When we call things or events accidents in this way, we do not deny that there are sustaining causes and the like for it; we are only stating that end result or consequence was unintended.

You and Cali impose straw men understandings to this word, and that much is quite obvious.

I think this is stretching it a bit, Mick. Your example has an intentional agent involved - the ball-thrower - and that's what makes it accidental, as opposed to a chance occurrence or something that is based solely on the laws of physics.

The point here is that the word can be used differently than the meaning they impose on it. But as for your point, I agree that it seems odd to call an event an accident if it is wholly impersonal. But from a strictly logical viewpoint, if an accident just is an unintended or unplanned event, action, etc., then impersonal events constitute accidents. If we characterize accidents as involving persons, then, yes, it would be a fault to call such a thing an accident. Rather, we could just call it something like an unintentional occurrence- a happenstance, perhaps?

chairman bill wrote:Mick has a point, but then I never accepted Cali's definition of an atheist. An atheist is simply someone who lacks belief in god(s), and that is that. Nothing more need be said. An atheist can believe in astrology, leprechauns & angels, but if they also lack belief in god(s), they're an atheist.

Ah, yes. I forgot to add that!

Cali wants to require atheists to be critical towards any supernaturalist claim. Any? Wtf is that? Why can't Sam be an atheist if he does not believe that a god exists but also uncritically accepts other supernatural claims involving, say, ghosts, demons, leprechauns or whatever else? Cali might think that such a refusal would be virtuous of any atheist, but why require it to qualify as an atheist?

chairman bill wrote:Mick has a point, but then I never accepted Cali's definition of an atheist. An atheist is simply someone who lacks belief in god(s), and that is that. Nothing more need be said. An atheist can believe in astrology, leprechauns & angels, but if they also lack belief in god(s), they're an atheist.

Sorry Bill. While normally I find myself agreeing with most what you say this is really a

I entirely agree with Cali. If you cant accept that any evidence (scientific not woosy philosofic) has not been given to show that any deity exists, the rest of the supernatural goes out the window as well.

Mick please give us the evidence of this deity's existance.

Also give us the evidence that your deity is the only true one. The muslims for one will be very interested to know.

Animavore wrote:

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:
To whom is this referring?

I'm starting to agree with Mick on this issue. Atheists aren't assertive enough. Not believing in God's or not accepting the baseless reasons to believe is not enough. We should be fighting back against every specific detail of every version of god ever conceived of.

Not believing in God's what?

You know that this leaves Mick having to fight back against every specific detail of every version of god ever conceived that he does not believe in also?

Good catch.

In actual fact, I'm within a Planck distance of being a strong atheist. The only thing that prevents certainty is, well, uncertainty. I can't disprove the existence of the teapot because I can't be everywhere at once to check.

Regardless, it is perfectly useful to continue as if I possess certainty about the non-existence of Mick's and every other god. How blasphemous! Oh, what's going to happen? Hell?

If these gods exist, they know where I am.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Sorry Bill. While normally I find myself agreeing with most what you say this is really a

I entirely agree with Cali. If you cant accept that any evidence (scientific not woosy philosofic) has not been given to show that any deity exists, the rest of the supernatural goes out the window as well.

How so? 'Atheism' denotes lack of belief in god(s). It absolutely does not follow that there must be a lack of belief in all supernatural entities.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

chairman bill wrote:Mick has a point, but then I never accepted Cali's definition of an atheist. An atheist is simply someone who lacks belief in god(s), and that is that. Nothing more need be said. An atheist can believe in astrology, leprechauns & angels, but if they also lack belief in god(s), they're an atheist.

Sorry Bill. While normally I find myself agreeing with most what you say this is really a

I entirely agree with Cali. If you cant accept that any evidence (scientific not woosy philosofic) has not been given to show that any deity exists, the rest of the supernatural goes out the window as well.

Mick please give us the evidence of this deity's existance.

Also give us the evidence that your deity is the only true one. The muslims for one will be very interested to know.

But why does it go out the window? It is not as if a disbelief in a god entails a disbelief in those other things. What is more, the truth of theism does entail the truth or falsity of, say, the truth of leprechauns. Again, you might think it is epistemically virtuous for an atheist to disbelief the rest-but why tie that into a disbelief in theism ?

chairman bill wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:Sorry Bill. While normally I find myself agreeing with most what you say this is really a

I entirely agree with Cali. If you cant accept that any evidence (scientific not woosy philosofic) has not been given to show that any deity exists, the rest of the supernatural goes out the window as well.

How so? 'Atheism' denotes lack of belief in god(s). It absolutely does not follow that there must be a lack of belief in all supernatural entities.

Not a lack of belief as I will never say I dont believe that a deity exists just show me scientific proof that it exists.

None is ever forth coming therefore the same argument applies to all supernatural entities. Show the evidence. Once again the claim is being made that they exist. This is one thing mick and his elk cant get their head around the default is atheism and he has to prove otherwise.

Not logical?

chairman bill wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:Sorry Bill. While normally I find myself agreeing with most what you say this is really a

I entirely agree with Cali. If you cant accept that any evidence (scientific not woosy philosofic) has not been given to show that any deity exists, the rest of the supernatural goes out the window as well.

How so? 'Atheism' denotes lack of belief in god(s). It absolutely does not follow that there must be a lack of belief in all supernatural entities.

I've a friend who thinks that "God" is a load of aul bollox but does believe in guardian angels, demons, chi, healing hands, communication with old kung-fu masters etc... because he practices a form of bullshido. It's basically a mix of New Age, Buddhism and ancestor worship. He's an atheist on a technicality by virtue of not believing in any gods, not because he has really thought about it (clearly). Cali seems to describe a sceptic more than an atheist.

Mick wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

chairman bill wrote:Mick has a point, but then I never accepted Cali's definition of an atheist. An atheist is simply someone who lacks belief in god(s), and that is that. Nothing more need be said. An atheist can believe in astrology, leprechauns & angels, but if they also lack belief in god(s), they're an atheist.

Sorry Bill. While normally I find myself agreeing with most what you say this is really a

I entirely agree with Cali. If you cant accept that any evidence (scientific not woosy philosofic) has not been given to show that any deity exists, the rest of the supernatural goes out the window as well.

Mick please give us the evidence of this deity's existance.

Also give us the evidence that your deity is the only true one. The muslims for one will be very interested to know.

But why does it go out the window? It is not as if a disbelief in a god entails a disbelief in those other things. What is more, the truth of theism does entail the truth or falsity of, say, the truth of leprechauns. Again, you might think it is epistemically virtuous for an atheist to disbelief the rest-but why tie that into a disbelief in theism ?

Like I said in my post to Bill the same arguments apply. Just show the evidence.

Scot Dutchy wrote:None is ever forth coming therefore the same argument applies to all supernatural entities ...

The same argument might apply, but the same word doesn't. An atheist need do no more than lack belief in god(s). That is it, nothing more.

Animavore wrote:

chairman bill wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:Sorry Bill. While normally I find myself agreeing with most what you say this is really a

I entirely agree with Cali. If you cant accept that any evidence (scientific not woosy philosofic) has not been given to show that any deity exists, the rest of the supernatural goes out the window as well.

How so? 'Atheism' denotes lack of belief in god(s). It absolutely does not follow that there must be a lack of belief in all supernatural entities.

I've a friend who thinks that "God" is a load of aul bollox but does believe in guardian angels, demons, chi, healing hands, communication with old kung-fu masters etc... because he practices a form of bullshido. It's basically a mix of New Age, Buddhism and ancestor worship. He's an atheist on a technicality by virtue of not believing in any gods, not because he has really thought about it (clearly). Cali seems to describe a sceptic more than an atheist.

So according to you and Bill atheism is a technical state?

Sorry do not accept. My atheism is based on pure logic. Prove that a deity exists scientifically or shut up and that applies to all supernatural entities.

Philosophy is the last place to look for hard evidence. That is as woosy as theology. A waste of time and money.

chairman bill wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:None is ever forth coming therefore the same argument applies to all supernatural entities ...

The same argument might apply, but the same word doesn't. An atheist need do no more than lack belief in god(s). That is it, nothing more.

Not the lack in the belief of deities but the lack evidence being produced to show their existance and that applies to other supernatural entities.

I do not claim they dont exist just produce the evidence. Is that so difficult? For mick it is impossible as it is for all theists. All they can do is dip into woosy philosophy.

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Animavore wrote:

chairman bill wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:Sorry Bill. While normally I find myself agreeing with most what you say this is really a

I entirely agree with Cali. If you cant accept that any evidence (scientific not woosy philosofic) has not been given to show that any deity exists, the rest of the supernatural goes out the window as well.

How so? 'Atheism' denotes lack of belief in god(s). It absolutely does not follow that there must be a lack of belief in all supernatural entities.

I've a friend who thinks that "God" is a load of aul bollox but does believe in guardian angels, demons, chi, healing hands, communication with old kung-fu masters etc... because he practices a form of bullshido. It's basically a mix of New Age, Buddhism and ancestor worship. He's an atheist on a technicality by virtue of not believing in any gods, not because he has really thought about it (clearly). Cali seems to describe a sceptic more than an atheist.

So according to you and Bill atheism is a technical state?

Sorry do not accept. My atheism is based on pure logic. Prove that a deity exists scientifically or shut up and that applies to all supernatural entities.

Philosophy is the last place to look for hard evidence. That is as woosy as theology. A waste of time and money.

It can be a technical state. Ask someone if they believe in god and if they say, "Nah. It's all bollox." then they are an atheist by definition regardless of what they believe after that. Saying that someone isn't an atheist because they haven't critically and robustly rejected the arguments for God in favour of a off-hand dismissal is like saying someone isn't a theist, despite saying they believe in a god, because they haven't read the Bible, Aquinas or studied theology.

Scot Dutchy wrote:So according to you and Bill atheism is a technical state?

Technically, yes. It is the state f lacking belief in god(s). It's what the word means.

Sorry do not accept. My atheism is based on pure logic. Prove that a deity exists scientifically or shut up and that applies to all supernatural entities.

Science doesn't prove anything. It's that old 'tentative nature of knowledge' thing. But I agree with you; there's no evidence for god(s), so no reason to believe in it/them. The same goes for all supernatural entities, but the word 'atheism' only applies to issues of god(s). Unless you're using Humpty-Dumpty's lexicon, where words mean just what you want them to mean.