"If atheism were true...."
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-05-2014, 05:15 AM
RE: "If atheism were true...."
"True" and "false" apply to claims. Atheism isn't a claim. It is a lack of something. Any claims made thereafter are incidental and reflect only the sentiments of the individual atheist in question.

Through profound pain comes profound knowledge.
Ridi, Pagliaccio, sul tuo amore infranto! Ridi del duol, che t'avvelena il cor!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like Misanthropik's post
16-05-2014, 05:26 AM
RE: "If atheism were true...."
(16-05-2014 05:01 AM)The Germans are coming Wrote:  When Phillip the second, father of Alexander the Great, went on his conquest of Greece with his Macedonian army and Molossian allies, he managed to conquer each Greek city state succesfully, with the exception of Sparta. Being well aware of the Spartan reputation for combat he sent them a message that read:

"If I win this war and you havent surrenderd, I shall raze your city to the ground, sell your peoples into slavery and destroy any notion of your existance from history."

The Spartans sent a message back that read:

"If"

Phillip the second never conquered Sparta. Neither did his son Alexander the great.

So much to the merrits of arguments starting with if.

Craig has been debunked since 300 BC.

If atheism is true.....

Hypotheticals are not uncommon in philosophy. Nor does the fact that Phillip the Second never conquered Sparta demonstrate that hypotheticals are not useful in philosophical argumentation and debate.

Cool story though!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 05:54 AM
RE: "If atheism were true...."
This is what happens when you allow the same word, atheism, to mean 2 completely different but related things.

WLC is taking atheism to be the position that there are no gods. Which is a positive assertion by those who take it. He is shifting the burden (standard for him).

This is the theist-created definition of atheism, which of course suits them to a T.
By allowing theists to keep twisting the definition of atheism to mean belief in the non-existence of gods instead of simple disbelief that there are gods, we are doing ourselves a disservice.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RogueWarrior's post
16-05-2014, 06:19 AM (This post was last modified: 16-05-2014 06:25 AM by TrainWreck.)
RE: "If atheism were true...."
(15-05-2014 09:36 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  What atheists should be doing is challenging theists to prove their claims in forums like we do here, where we can fact-check, verify, research, and give thorough and well-considered responses and rebuttals to their batshit claims.
Facepalm

You make it sound like you're getting something accomplished - too bad your plan only works at debating theism, and does not advance secularism.

I can hear Harris now; "I will not debate you live, but please join me at TheThinkingAtheist forum for a real debate, and we'll get to the bottom of this." Laugh out load

(16-05-2014 05:54 AM)RogueWarrior Wrote:  This is the theist-created definition of atheism, which of course suits them to a T.
Weeping

Yeah suits them to a "T," as in "THEISM," is the root word for "atheism."

(16-05-2014 05:54 AM)RogueWarrior Wrote:  By allowing theists to keep twisting the definition of atheism to mean belief in the non-existence of gods instead of simple disbelief that there are gods, we are doing ourselves a disservice.

What are you going to do make a law as to what the definition of atheism is???

Why don't you go through the whole fucking dictionary and make sure all the definitions are correct while you're at it! And when you get that far you'll realize that the fucking knowledge classification system is a fucking mess.Laugh out load

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 06:29 AM
RE: "If atheism were true...."
(16-05-2014 05:15 AM)Misanthropik Wrote:  "True" and "false" apply to claims. Atheism isn't a claim. It is a lack of something. Any claims made thereafter are incidental and reflect only the sentiments of the individual atheist in question.

Which is precisely why people who engage in formal debate study their opponent's views and arguments BEFORE engaging in debate with them.

Something I have stated before but which fell on deaf ears here...

That is why Sam Harris does not object to Craig's usage of the term. Craig knows Harris is a man who does not believe in God. And Harris does not hide behind the whole "atheism is not a claim" defense that is seen propagated primarily on infidel forums.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 06:35 AM
RE: "If atheism were true...."
(16-05-2014 05:54 AM)RogueWarrior Wrote:  This is what happens when you allow the same word, atheism, to mean 2 completely different but related things.

WLC is taking atheism to be the position that there are no gods. Which is a positive assertion by those who take it. He is shifting the burden (standard for him).

This is the theist-created definition of atheism, which of course suits them to a T.
By allowing theists to keep twisting the definition of atheism to mean belief in the non-existence of gods instead of simple disbelief that there are gods, we are doing ourselves a disservice.

Dr. Craig debates with men and women who are non-theists.

In fact, most of the people I have seen him debate refer to themselves as non-theists.

A non-theist does not believe God exists.

The confusion is only found here in forums like this. In the academy, people who are not theists do have arguments and defenses for their views. They recognize that to claim their position is one that does not need defending is simply wishful thinking.

Only on these forums will people try to claim that their beliefs are beyond reproach and need no defense because they just so happen to label themselves as atheists.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Jeremy E Walker's post
16-05-2014, 07:02 AM
RE: "If atheism were true...."
(16-05-2014 06:29 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 05:15 AM)Misanthropik Wrote:  "True" and "false" apply to claims. Atheism isn't a claim. It is a lack of something. Any claims made thereafter are incidental and reflect only the sentiments of the individual atheist in question.

Which is precisely why people who engage in formal debate study their opponent's views and arguments BEFORE engaging in debate with them.

Something I have stated before but which fell on deaf ears here...

That is why Sam Harris does not object to Craig's usage of the term. Craig knows Harris is a man who does not believe in God. And Harris does not hide behind the whole "atheism is not a claim" defense that is seen propagated primarily on infidel forums.

Negs.

Through profound pain comes profound knowledge.
Ridi, Pagliaccio, sul tuo amore infranto! Ridi del duol, che t'avvelena il cor!
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 08:29 AM
RE: "If atheism were true...."
(16-05-2014 06:35 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(16-05-2014 05:54 AM)RogueWarrior Wrote:  This is what happens when you allow the same word, atheism, to mean 2 completely different but related things.

WLC is taking atheism to be the position that there are no gods. Which is a positive assertion by those who take it. He is shifting the burden (standard for him).

This is the theist-created definition of atheism, which of course suits them to a T.
By allowing theists to keep twisting the definition of atheism to mean belief in the non-existence of gods instead of simple disbelief that there are gods, we are doing ourselves a disservice.

Dr. Craig debates with men and women who are non-theists.

In fact, most of the people I have seen him debate refer to themselves as non-theists.

A non-theist does not believe God exists.

The confusion is only found here in forums like this. In the academy, people who are not theists do have arguments and defenses for their views. They recognize that to claim their position is one that does not need defending is simply wishful thinking.

Only on these forums will people try to claim that their beliefs are beyond reproach and need no defense because they just so happen to label themselves as atheists.

You keep asserting that non-belief is a belief. Don't you realize how illogical that is?

And where is this 'academy' of which you speak?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
16-05-2014, 08:53 AM
RE: "If atheism were true...."
(16-05-2014 08:29 AM)Chas Wrote:  You keep asserting that non-belief is a belief. Don't you realize how illogical that is?

This is the argument that I am looking for - how long are you going to make this argument until you recognize that the misunderstanding has to do with the system of definitions that are being used?

That is what the problem is, otherwise you would not even bother to try to explain it to the theists.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-05-2014, 08:54 AM (This post was last modified: 16-05-2014 09:01 AM by rampant.a.i..)
"If atheism were true...."
(16-05-2014 04:40 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(15-05-2014 08:50 PM)TheBear Wrote:  A few years ago Sam Harris had a public debate with William Craig. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwcZNWd3iSo
The topic was morals and ethics. Their time limits were strictly enforced.

Throughout the debate, Craig kept saying "if atheism were true....".


What does that even mean? I thought to myself, why is Sam letting him get away with that? Then I remembered the time restrictions. He barely had time to address the other points.

One more thing he didn't have enough time to address was the assumption that if there is a god, then therefore morals necessarily come from that god.

What are your thoughts?

I find it interesting that no non-theist in debate takes issue with the term "atheism" being used the way Craig uses it.

When Craig says things like "on atheism", or " if atheism is true", he is simply saying " in a world without God"....

That is why no one debating him has issue with the way he uses the term.

No, it's because WLC is an intellectually dishonest skid-mark who warps language to fool the listener.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig

http://www.uncrediblehallq.net/2011/06/0...followers/

Quote:You don’t have to have any brains to tell someone, “Have you seen the Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology? Before you say there are no intelligent theists and no good reasons to believe in God, maybe you’d better look at that book first. Otherwise, you’re not really informed.” You don’t need to have read these books yourself if you’re so pressed for time. All you have to do is know a few titles. ... Shame the unbeliever for his ignorance of the literature.

"You don't have to read books, just pretend you have and lie about it."

Quote:[L]earn to drop the names of some Christian scholars. ... Name-dropping is distasteful when someone is trying to show off, but in a case like this, you’re simply offering counter-examples to the sweeping claim that all Christians are ignoramuses, a view that is itself rooted in ignorance."

- WLC

http://barefootbum.blogspot.com/2010/07/...l.html?m=1

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like rampant.a.i.'s post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: