| Sqrl said: Why not quote and respond to this bit: "But this is actually pretty moot since I can make the point with equal (and perhaps greater) effectiveness without referring to atheism but instead specifically to beliefs." |
I thought I did quote and respond to that bit?
| donathos said: Now, you say "this is actually pretty moot since I can make the point with equal (and perhaps greater) effectiveness without referring to atheism but instead specifically to beliefs," and that's fine. If you're not talking about "atheism" then we have no beef, because your arguments actually have nothing to do with what I believe, or how atheism seems to be generally defined by the atheist community. Further, had you not labelled atheists "intellectually dishonest," I wouldn't have responded to your post at all. But if you want to discuss "atheism," then how you define the term (surprisingly?) matters to the discussion. |
I don't know what more I can add to that?
|
It sort of explained that your entire atheism oriented reply was pointless. |
I was trying to respond to all of your post; I thought, for you to take the time to write it, it must be worth responding to. Sorry for the confusion.
|
Just to be clear I already see where this whole things is headed which is why I'm actively attempting to speed it along to that end. We have an irreconcilable difference on 2 pieces of terminology and I have zero interest in hammering it out to be completely blunt (12 months ago I might have had the time, but I don't anymore). |
Honestly, I just thought that when you brought up the blurb from dictionary.com, etc., that you were interested in the terminology, and that the meaning of "atheism" mattered to our discussion. Again, my mistake.
|
With that said my original point I was attempting to make still remains, specifically that a belief that god does not exist or cannot exist is demonstrably one of faith. If you agree with that then we actually have arrived at that end already. If you indeed do agree with that then signify it as part of your next post and I'll let you have the last word on the subject to wrap up any points you want to make. |
Well, really, I don't know if I agree with it or not. I know that there are several people who make the claim that they can logically prove that god cannot exist, but I'm not one of them, and I don't know their arguments very well.
Absent a specific logical argument against the possibility of god to critique, I think I'd find you hard-pressed to demonstrate that such a logical argument could not be made.
Going back to your list of 10 points (with the understanding that we're talking about those who claim that god cannot exist, "anti-theists" for convenience), your point 9 deals with such logical arguments this way:
The only remaining option is logic and failing to present the logic for the assessment of others while claiming that your position is still logical is either ignorance of the terms, abuse of terms, or intellectual dishonesty.
But that only says that an anti-theist who is unable to present the logic for the basis of his belief is guilty of "intellectual dishonesty." It doesn't mean that there cannot be an anti-theist who can demonstrate the logic of his beliefs, does it?
And so, unless you can offer some logical proof as to why all such logical proofs must, by their nature, fail, then I don't know how you can say that an anti-theist with an airtight logical argument cannot exist.
And if you can't rule such an anti-theist out, then I don't think I can agree that "a belief that god does not exist or cannot exist is demonstrably one of faith."
