Rise of atheism: 100,000 Brits seek 'de-baptism'

[Sqrl]

donathos said:

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.

Sorry been in a rush the last few posts, and I'm sure it shows. This is part of my reason for trying to keep things simple actually.

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.

No, I admit I started down that path. But I'm trying to simplify and keep the whole thing focused on my main point rather than trying to debate every single branch topic of a topic with endless branches.  Some of the branches are admittedly mine or my fault...I don't claim my argument was perfectly articulated from the start though.  And as I said I think we have a very strong disagreement in terminology on those 2 words and it would probably be fairly fruitless and frustrating for both of us.  So if I can make my basic point without it I think it is more than worthwhile. 

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.

I'm not approaching it from that direction though.  I'm saying that if a person cannot make a logical argument for a belief then it has faith as its basis.  Because if they can't make the argument, whether it exists or not, they are making it based on faith.  This goes back to the part where I said "Its not actually an option".  This was a comment about what I said next, and was in essence saying you either have a logical argument to support a belief or you don't, and if you don't your argument is based in faith.

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?

Well I want to be careful because demonstrating logic in a belief and demonstrating that a belief is supported by logic are slightly different.  This is perhaps a big source of confusion between us.  An argument is supported by logic as I stated in my numbered points before... but the logic of a belief doesn't actually have to be logically consistent as long as it is logically consistent from the perspective and information available to the believer. 

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."

Well I could very simply point out that any omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent being that doesn't wish to be proven will not be proven.  So no matter what argument is made any god with these attributes (ie pretty much god in every major religion) will remain out of the reach of any logical proof by virtue of his claimed imnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence.  Discovering the origins of our universe, the beginning of time, anything can be simply explained away through the abstraction of one more layer of wrapping around reality.  No matter how many layers are peeled back another can be immediately assumed because of the limitless power, wisdom, and information he is defined to have.

So while it may be possible to disprove gods without those nifty abilities (although I think even that is a tall order), the gods that do have those abilities will remain possible.

But even so my original point was never to show that someone could or couldn't prove God, but to say that those who haven't done so (ie probably everyone) owe their belief about the existance of God to faith.  I touched on this earlier with this comment "I'm not making any demands on the way people reach a belief...only taking issue with how they characterize them to others...or specifically mischaracterize them to others." 

I'm saying that many non-theists characterize their belief of god to be a logically supported conclusion when it actually is not logically supported.  The reason I make this point is because I believe theists and non-theists are on equal footing at the opening of a debate in terms of burden of proof.  They both have to make their case, it's not the responsibility of one to prove their case and failing that the other wins.