Cmdr. Chris Havens, the Police Department spokesman, said the suspects boasted about belonging to a leaderless group of 10 or 15 who share a belief that society has become too focused on self-improvement and self-gratification and has lost focus on the glorification of God.
"They admit to being Christian and being brought up Christian, but they believe there should be one denomination and one church, not multiple denominations," Havens said. "They did not say they had a name for their group, other than they were a radical Christian activist group. That was the way they explained their group," he said. ...
The three admitted to being in a core group of seven that created the explosive weapon as a test to draw attention to the demise of society and to see whether the device would work, Havens said. "They believe that the past generations have accumulated trash and are responsible for making younger generations clean up their mess," he said. "They're trying to make a statement and get society's attention regarding that."
Source: Star-Telegram
Christianity is supposed to be a religion of peace, yet Christians are quite capable of becoming violent terrorists in the right conditions — rather like adherents of another popular "religion of peace." Christians often like to think of themselves and their religion as too exceptional to fall victim to acts of barbaric cruelty, but the inescapable fact is that the past and texts of their religion are already full of barbaric cruelty. It would be remarkable if contemporary Christians were completely free of it all.
A consistent message from the Christian Right in recent years has been the two-pronged promotion of Christian Supremacy and attacks on religious pluralism. Christian Supremacism is the ideology that Christianity alone should define public institutions, cultural institutions, laws, politics, and government. The attacks on religious pluralism is an attempt to reduce any influence and power of both religions other than Christianity and Christian denominations which do not adhere closely to the extremist line set by far-right Christian leaders.
Both the promotion of Christian Supremacy and the attacks on religious pluralism are fundamental to what is broadly known as the Culture Wars. For the Christian Right, the label "Culture Wars" is not entirely metaphorical. Most terrorist attacks occurred against abortion providers and gay rights organizations. Even earlier attacks were made against members of the Civil Rights movements. Now, some Christians are even turning on each other.
This isn't the least bit surprising for an extremist movement which defines itself, at least in large part, by it's "purity" and strict adherence to an unquestionable dogma. Every such movement inevitably turns inwards against its own members because there are always plenty who are not "pure" enough and "holy" enough to be acceptable in the New Order. Of course, this usually only happens in earnest after most of the other enemies have been decisively eliminated (except for those who exist purely for propaganda purposes) and new enemies (or scapegoats) are needed. If there is anything surprising, then, it's that Christian terrorism against other Christians — and very conservative Christians in particular — is occurring now.
The Victory Family Church, ironically enough, was in the news just a few days earlier for their own aggressive tactics (correction: this was a different Victory Family Church - this appears to be a popular name in Texas).
I do not know whether they have ever supported violent Christian extremism, such as that on display in Milwaukee on July 29 when extremist Christian groups will honor Paul Hill as a hero:
On July 29th, 1994, Paul Hill boldly defended 31 babies from unspeakable violence by killing a paid assassin and his bodyguard. He was arrested, given a sham trial, and executed as a martyr. On the 13th anniversary of Paul Hill’s act of love and mercy, memorial events will be held in Milwaukee, Wisconsin to honor him as God’s man and our hero.
George L. Wilson of Children Needs Heroes, one of the sponsors of Paul Hill days, recognizes a grand total of three heroes. In addition to terrorist Paul Hill, there is James Kopp, convicted of assassinating Dr. Barnett Slepian, and Shelly Shannon, convicted of the attempted assassination of Dr. George Tiller in Wichita, Kansas. Memorializing convicted Christian terrorists like this is strikingly similar to how suicide bombers are memorialized as martyrs in some Muslim communities.
All these terrorists have assumed the right to kill people they cannot convince to accept their beliefs, and they do it in the name of an unreasoning God that only they hear telling them to kill. All involve a few active terrorists supported by a much larger group of active supporters of terrorism, and the larger groups recruit and encourage other killers to do their bidding by calling them "heroes." ...
The unbelievers the Christian terrorists want to kill in America are the majority of us who support a woman's right to choose what to do with her body. The Islamic terrorists consider the western attitude of allowing our women to let others see her face or her body. In both religions it is terrorists who demand that women be controlled by them. Since the terrorists represent minority extremist cults but demand that everyone obey them, they are frustrated beyong belief. So they send their evil terrorists out to kill unbelievers.
In both cases they consider the beliefs of the unbelievers to be a violation of what they interpret to be God's (or Allah's) Law, and they use this as justification to kill the unbelievers without warning or mercy. Then the congregation members of these dangerous cults present the terrorists as 'heroes' to get their own children to emulate them.
Source: WTF
In the past, I've seen Hill compared to John Brown and other religious or political martyrs. Sometimes these extremists seem almost gleeful that Hill was a martyr, though I notice that none of those authors were rushing forward to volunteer their services in this regard. I wonder if the valorization of Hill's actions and execution qualify as any sort of incitement to violence? Probably, not, given how little attention the government pays to violence and terrorism committed by abortion opponents.
It will be very important to keep a close eye on these events to see what is learned in the investigation and if any further attacks occur. We need to know if this is just a temporary aberration or an early warning signal of worse to come.
Isn't it curious, though, atheists are the ones who keep getting accused of intolerance, extremism, and militancy? Atheists aren't the ones who are burning down churches or planting bombs outside abortion clinics — we're just the ones pointing out how much of a problem religion is for creating the conditions which make such behavior easier. Religious believers should spend more time working to prevent such actions than lashing out at atheist critics.
This is odd. I waited to post for this, because I live in Texas and wanted to see what, if anything, I hear about it. I’ve heard nothing. I posted to the Atheist Community of Austin list to see if anyone else has heard anything. So far there has been no response, but it hasn’t been posted long.
Still nothing on the ACA list. One person replied that they’d never heard of this. I may do some more digging on this…?
For a bright fellow, you do check your facts. The church that suffered the aborted attack is in Burleson, TX; the church with the billboard is located in Decatur, TX more than an hour NW of Burleson. One would have to assume your facts about the absence of God to have the same lack of fact checking.
Bill Miller
lonestarworship.com
Thanks for the correction. I know it was made in the spirit of kindness.
I’m sorry, but I can’t make any sense of that.
Boo, I’m a bad Christian….
Gonna steal your friggin’ Easter eggs
Athiest merely pointing out problems in religion? Ha! You have obviously forgot the untold millions murdered by athiestic communist in the Soviet Union and communist China. Face it, it is the athiest who hate true christianity and get offended by it. If the athiest had his way he would abolish all religion and has proved it time and time again in China and the Soviet Union. The Bible never sanctions the bombing of murderous abortion clinics or the torching of church buildings. The men who perform such things could not be considered followers of Christ because Christ never taught his people to do such things.
Nice one-sided lack of all the facts article.
I haven’t forgotten about them. Unlike you, though, I realize that they were murdered by people acting on behalf of totalitarian communism, not on behalf of atheism.
Prove it. First, though, you might want to explain what you mean by “the atheist.”
Since some atheists are religious, that doesn’t make much sense, now does it?
There is, however, sanction for violence against outsiders in the Bible. The exact form of that violence is malleable for believers.
Christ never taught his people to make false accusations on the internet, either. I guess that means you’re not a follower of Christ?
Now before you write me off as some religious nutjob let me tell you this Im not an expert on the whole “christian terrorist” thing. god did not tell them to do it dont blame him. We sometimes do wat is called being of the flesh. Hitler did it sadamm even King david who defeated goliath did it. He slept with a married woman and sent her husband to the frontlines to be killed everybody has it in their nature to do evil but wat god wants is for us to overcome that nature and become pure hearted. And you are deceived on christians wanting to control women. god loves everyone male and female. now if a girl goes off and practices harlotry or a man wants to be homosexual god still loves them but he hates sin. Jesus wants to dwell with man but he cant be around sin. I sin too im not gonna be a hypocrite but like I said earlier the trick is to control your sin not the other way around. He gave his life for everyone even you so you could believe in his father and have a personal relationship with him. Now I may be sounding like a broken record lol but he loves you he died for you too. I mean we can argue about christian “Terrorism all day. I agree that blowing an abortion clinic up is totally wrogn dont go thinkin all christians are like this. I love you and god loves you and Jesus loves you and he wants you to love him. All he does is offer his word. And on the ateist subject, if you think christianity is fake then look through historical roman record by a man named Josephus, there are others but hes the only name I know. There are actual historic records of a man named Jesus of Nazareth who was without sin, did supernatural things, and was crucified on a cross. Listen you can tell me to take a hike but like I said we love you and god want you to accept him. All im asking is that you read the bible(just try please) and I pray god touches you cause I want to see you in heaven. Jesus said to the pharisees when they wanted to stone the woman adulterer “let the one without sin cast the first stone” all of the pharisees left and Jesus stood up and told the woman “repent and you are forgiven” she repented and he said “now go back to your husband and never do it again”. I am not judging you or telling you wat to do Im just begging you to seek the truth rather than be ignorant to the light. God Loves You and I love you and if you will give your life to him you will be blessed a hundredfold.
Have a nice day
Atheism is every bit as much a religious belief as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, in that it claims insight into whether God exists. The number of gods to believe in, whether it be zero, one, or more, is a personal faith-based decision that cannot be resolved by scientific investigation.
Shouting matches between atheists and Christians might differ in some details from those between Catholics and Protestants, or between Jews and Muslims, but basically all of the shouting at each other going on in this page is typical of the intolerance all too often encountered between groups uncomfortable with the details of each other’s beliefs and worshipping practices.
What are the odds of atheists and Christians getting together and agreeing to disagree amicably about the differences in their beliefs while working towards cementing a common fellowship by looking for and celebrating those values they do hold in common? As long as they continue to carry on in the sort of vein we see above, I’d say the odds were pretty slim.
No, it doesn’t. You are misinformed about the nature of atheism.
And how do you know this?
So…. atheists shouldn’t criticize Christian terrorists?
> No, it doesn’t. You are misinformed about the nature of atheism.
You’ll need to take that up with Britannica, Wikipedia, and every English dictionary, all of whom you would presumably take exception to. To quote Britannica (1986), “atheism, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such it is the opposite of theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is to be distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not.”
One of the commonest sources of heated argument is when two parties use the same words to mean different things. We seem to have a prima facie example of that here.
If by the definition above you are in fact not an atheist but an agnostic, then it would be very helpful to know this, the better to reach a common understanding. Abusing your subscribers by calling them “uninformed” merely puts you in the same camp as Rush Limbaugh, this being his approach to reaching a meeting of the minds, he only cares about his mind and not yours.
> And how do you know this?
Because science today lacks the tools necessary to measure or even detect the presence of spiritual beings. If you’re aware of any such tools I think everyone here would be very interested, in fact every scientist on earth would be!
> So…. atheists shouldn’t criticize Christian terrorists?
If Obama can advocate killing Muslim terrorists I would say atheists were equally justified in advocating killing Christian terrorists. Since the vast majority of terrorist killings were conducted by the likes of Stalin, Hitler, and Mao, whose religious affiliations I’ll leave you to judge, I’d say atheists, as well as agnostics like you (if that’s what you are), are equally justified in advocating killing terrorists of any religious affiliation, even agnostic terrorists. Terrorism is too serious an offence against humanity to justify playing religious favorites.
Note that I’m only drawing inferences from Obama’s position here. My own preference would be first to sort the terrorists one can talk to rationally from the ones one can’t before killing them. Sometimes terrorists have a valid concern and have just chosen an unacceptably violent antisocial way to express it, sometimes they’re just psychopaths who enjoy waging war against the world at large and who therefore need to be locked up, or killed when incapacitation proves impossible, as per the rules of engagement for war.
No, most dictionaries and other reference works going back more than a century attest to the broad definition of atheism.
Yes, I’m using the standard, broad definition used by atheists and you’re using a narrow definition that is only generally accepted by theists.
I’m both.
So, you feel abused when your errors are corrected?
And how does this make it impossible to use science to resolve whether any gods exist?
Allow me to cite one example: many definitions of gods, spirits, souls, etc include characteristics which allow for or require testable, measurable, and even predictable effects in the natural world. Since those effects can be tested for and measured, we have a marvelous means for testing for the existing of the alleged beings.
That doesn’t answer my question. It doesn’t even address it.
I forgot to address something from your first comment. Allow me to do so in more detail:
1. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are not religious beliefs, they are religions or religious belief systems. There’s a big difference between the two. It’s like calling Existentialism and Nihilism philosophical beliefs, or calling conservatism a political belief.
2. Atheism is not a belief, but even if it were it can’t qualify as a belief system. Atheism can be part of a religious belief system or a secular belief system, just like theism. Neither qualify as belief systems all on their own, though.
> No, most dictionaries and other reference works going back more than a century attest to the broad definition of atheism.
I have lots of dictionaries, some dating back more than a century, not a single one of which bears out your claim. For example my 1896 Webster defines an atheist to be “one who disbelieves the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.” Since most American dictionaries take their lead from Webster, I have great difficulty with your claim. Going back further, the unabridged Oxford English Dictionary defines an atheist as “One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God.” Please name *any* dictionary that takes your position. Your account of the history of dictionaries seems to be a revisionist one.
> I’m both.
Oops, I fell into that one, silly me. Of course you’re both, you’ve defined your terms to make it so. Let me rephrase my question. Some say there is a god (which I gather you don’t), some deny there is a god (plain enough), and some say we don’t know (not so plain, because they could be saying we’ll never know, or that we just don’t yet have sufficient data, or yet more nuanced judgments). More complicated yet, there are those who hate God and wish he’d just pack up and go harass some other universe (need I spell out that this would entail believing in God?). Where roughly would you say you sat in that spectrum?
> So, you feel abused when your errors are corrected?
Yes, when they’re corrected by calling me “uninformed.” Note that I haven’t called you uninformed, or even “corrected” you as you put it, what I have done is to call into question your statements with evidence against them, and ask for evidence from you supporting them. I may well be wrong (if I’m insane, how would I know that?), but for now the ball is back in your court to offset my evidence with yours. This is the civil way to resolve differences, which you seem not to care for for some reason.
> Allow me to cite one example: many definitions of gods, spirits, souls, etc include characteristics which allow for or require testable, measurable, and even predictable effects in the natural world. Since those effects can be tested for and measured, we have a marvelous means for testing for the existing of the alleged beings.
Your point is very valid and well taken. Those religions that behave as you describe put themselves in a weak position. Mainstream religions avoid such behavior for exactly that reason. The Catholic church for example goes to considerable lengths to remain consistent with our understanding of physical phenomena like the shape of the solar system, though it has only fully appreciated the importance of doing so in the past few centuries—the Galileo episode made it look rather silly, and it implicitly acknowledged the damage later on by aligning itself better with the march of science, at least as regards measurable physical phenomena, as opposed to less measurable societal and ethical concerns such as abortion.
> That doesn’t answer my question. It doesn’t even address it.
Well there could be two reasons for that.
1. I wasn’t clear enough. In that case let me clarify. To summarize my answer, everyone, regardless of their religious beliefs, should be highly critical of terrorists, regardless of the terrorists’ religious beliefs. As I said, “Terrorism is too serious an offence against humanity to justify playing religious favorites.” This important message is not clear to a lot of people, so if that was the problem then you are far from alone.
2. You may have understood my message but didn’t feel it applied to atheists because theists and atheists play by different rules and therefore when advocating any behavior one must explicitly say when it applies to atheists. If so then I apologize for presuming otherwise. I should have said that the idea that people should be critical of terrorists should apply to atheists every bit as much as to the dictionary writers who appear to have taken up arms against you, on whom fie.
Your second message seems to betray a lack of self-awareness. You have written extensively on the principles of atheism—what it is and so on—thereby developing atheism into a belief system incorporating your beliefs. Denying this is like someone who builds a house to live in and then claims it is not a house but merely where they happen to live. Which might in fact be how it seems to them if they’ve never been outside. Once you go outdoors it becomes more obvious that you’ve been living in a house, just as space travel made the fact that we live on planet Earth a little more vivid for us.
I think you need to take a break from writing about atheism and get out a little so as to see what you’ve built from the outside.
Why didn’t you follow the link I gave? If you had, you wouldn’t have made the following error.
This supports my claim. You should look up “disbelieve” because in most comprehensive, unabridged dictionaries, the first definition is simply “not believe.” So, the first definition of atheist is “one who does not believe in the existence” of gods. Do note that there is a difference between disbelieve and deny, or to “not believe” and “believe not.” The absence of a belief in the truth of a proposition is not the same denying the truth of that proposition or believing in the truth of the contradictory proposition.
I named dozens of dictionaries which take my position, including the OED. Really, you should have followed the link I provided — you only need to scroll a little bit to get to the links to discussions about modern dictionaries, online dictionaries, specialized references, early freethinkers and so forth.
The term “god” can mean too much to be dealt with generally; until it is give adequate and more specific substance, I don’t say there is and I don’t deny there is. Once again, if you had followed the link I gave, you’d understand why atheists define atheism broadly and the difference between strong & weak atheism.
Well, I’m sorry that you feel abused when your lack of information and knowledge on some topic is pointed out, but your ignorance is in your own hands.
We’re all uninformed about lots of different things — no one can be truly “informed” on everything. Most of the time, that doesn’t matter. I’m uninformed about Chinese literature, but that doesn’t make a difference here and now, does it?
Being uninformed about the nature of atheism when writing about atheism, though, does make a difference.
Actually, I already did that and you ignored it, causing you to make all sorts of errors.
Then do you admit that your original claim was incorrect and needs to be revised or retracted?
I notice that you don’t even try to offer any arguments or facts to demonstrate that what I wrote is incorrect. Instead, you pretend that making negative personal comments serves as a substantive rebuttal. That sort of passive-aggressive behavior is just sad, not serious.
This is 100% false. Not only have I not developed atheism into a belief system, but I have specifically and consistently denied that atheism is or can be a belief system. In fact, I have specifically criticized atheists who take other beliefs of theirs and call those beliefs a part of atheism. I have never, ever, ever argued that there is anything that is “atheism” aside from mere disbelief in gods. What this means is that I haven’t written, extensively or otherwise, about “the principles of atheism” because there are no “principles of atheism.”
Or perhaps you need to stop and read what I have actually written instead of simply making assumptions about me and my writings.
I am aware of my beliefs and I am aware of where atheism fits in with them. I am also aware that none of those beliefs are “part of” atheism. I am far more aware of my beliefs and ideas than you are — indeed, you demonstrate that you are completely uninformed about what I have written. You may be quite well informed about lots of interesting and important things, but you consistently shown yourself to be substantially uninformed about the subjects you’re trying to write about here. There’s lots of information here and I even provided specific links on the things you specifically got wrong, but it’s up to you to spend the time necessary to inform yourself.
> Do note that there is a difference between disbelieve and deny, or to “not believe” and “believe not.”
This is a technically correct but unfortunately sophisticated interpretation of “disbelieve.” It is sophisticated in that it is not how people actually use “not believe” in ordinary parlance.
By coincidence this exact question of the proper interpretation of “not believe” came up at the end of a talk at a recent conference in Pittsburgh. At question time a very senior and prominent logician stood up and said “I don’t believe your main theorem.” The speaker, an equally senior and prominent logician, stiffened, reddened, then announced loudly, “You have my full attention!”
At the coffee break the questioner meekly explained that he merely meant that he did not understand the proof, which left him in no position to believe the theorem. This only made the speaker more angry, and he berated the questioner for sowing doubt in the minds of the students present as to the truth of the theorem.
I found no one who would take the side of the questioner in that dispute. All were in agreement that the questioner, a native-born Russian for whom English was therefore not his native language (though he had spoken it for many years), used “not believe” in a technically correct way that would make sense to a logician when carefully analyzed. But they also agreed that, in order not to insult the speaker and confuse the audience, what the questioner should have said was “I didn’t follow your proof.” (With which many in the audience would have been in sympathy.)
In ordinary parlance, extending even to that used between logicians during a talk on logic, “not believe” means something stronger than merely “not know.” Had the OED or Webster meant that an atheist is someone who does not know whether there is a god they would have phrased it that way, because in ordinary parlance people do not distinguish “not believe” and “believe not.” The difference is just too sophisticated, even by the standards of professional logicians when discoursing in ordinary language, as opposed to the language of formal logic which draws the clear distinction between “not believe” and “believe not” that you are asking your readers to adapt to everyday speech.
In straight talk, “not believe” and “not know” *do* mean very different things. You do not practice straight talk.
Absent any compelling objection to my other points, I rest my case.
Dictionaries reflect usage. Dictionaries rarely, if ever, define disbelieve as the same as deny. Ergo, proper and expected usage of disbelieve is to express something other than denial — when you disbelieve the truth of some proposition, you aren’t denying it. This means that the distinction between disbelieve (“not believe”) and deny (“believe not”) isn’t technical or sophisticated, but rather normal and expected. The definitions of disbelieve (not believe, withhold belief, reject belief) are not from any technical field and they aren’t jargon; instead, they are the normal, natural, meanings of the term.
This is absolutely and utterly false. The distinction I am using is the one expressed in the normal, everyday definitions of the words in question; it’s not a distinction based on jargon or technical, sophisticated logic.
I shouldn’t have to point this out, but it looks like I do: if it were the case that “not believe” meant the same as “believe not,” then we’d have no simple way of expressing not believing the truth of some proposition (while not believing it’s false). Obviously such a position exists – it’s arguably the position of most people with most (possible) propositions most of the time. It seems to me that there is a very good reason why “disbelieve” simply means “not believe, withhold belief, reject belief in” but not deny: we need a term for that and already have plenty of terms for denying.
I never claimed that they mean the same thing. I’ve never even implied it; on the contrary, I’ve repeatedly written that belief and knowledge are separate issues. This means you aren’t practicing honest talk.
Oh, and your example of the Russian questioner is irrelevant because it’s an example of a person misusing “disbelieve” to mean “do not follow,” something no dictionary says is correct. So of course the audience wouldn’t understand what was meant.
I’m sorry, but you’ve never had a case. You’ve repeatedly made false statements and accusations despite having before you clear evidence to the contrary.
For a long time I’ve questioned the efficacy of the term ‘atheist’. For starters I apply very few terms to me about myself, if you will, to prevent painting myself into an intellectual corner. In terms of this kind of debate I refer to myself as an unbeliever because4 the word atheist seems to drag with it a partial recognition of theism and a validity of it’s belief. It’s as if one says there’s a god but I don’t believe it. Because there is theo in the definition of the word many theists see those unbelievers who call themselves atheists as denying something real and therefore imputing guilt to themselves. It’s seen as “without god” rather than disbelief in god. Add in the pejorative feelings of believers against those who aren’t like themselves and you have a virtually no win situation. Which is the reason I think of myself as a nonbeliever because when it comes to “god” there is no there there. And Believer if you say there is then PROVE it beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I find it incredible that people still try paint Atheism as a religion or religious belief system.
Why can’t people understand that I don’t believe in a god exactly the same way I don’t believe in a 8-headed invisible flying pig monkey.
I wonder what a good word would be for someone who denies the existence of this 8-headed monkey being. Lets call it a Gregist. Does that now make Gregism a religious belief system?
Lifelong atheist.
Atheists have no childish ritualism. No edifices, No monumental buildings. No Gods. No regular meetings. No leaders, No regulations. Nobody wearing funny hats and dresses or uniforms.
No requirement to join an organisation. No need to agree with one another. No set beliefs. Heck I guess it just can’t qualify as a religious belief system. If it had any of the foregoing I wouldn’t join. Come to think of it I haven’t actually joined any atheistic group ever. Well “Australian Skeptics.” maybe, but even their there is no requirement to be either theist or atheist.
tomegar@halenet.com.au
Sojourner says: “In straight talk, “not believe” and “not know” *do* mean very different things. You do not practice straight talk.”
Seems to me he is trying to make the English language less powerful, not more. His post is not “Straight talk”. If it were, he would have continued to debate and CONCEDED where the debating was against him. Failing to have one’s mind changed by the process of debate is, to me a big error. Otherwise, what is the point of debating ? Sure go away and think, or research, but to just say “I rest my case” is such an intellectual copout. It cheapens any value that I might have ascribed to his side of the argument.
(Sorry, I was away for a few days.)
> Dictionaries rarely, if ever, define disbelieve as the same as deny.
Austin, I have to wonder if you’ve ever cracked open a mainstream dictionary. Both Webster’s and the Oxford English Dictionary flatly contradict you. Webster defines the transitive-verb meaning of “disbelieve” as
“to fail to believe; reject as untrue.”
The OED defines it at slightly greater length as
“Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of.”
Just to be absolutely sure I wasn’t misunderstanding Webster I looked up “untrue.” Webster defines it as “contrary to fact or truth; false; incorrect.”
Maybe the difference between denying a statement and saying it’s false is clear to you, but I must say that distinction went right over my head. You must have a terrible time getting these distinctions across at cocktail parties.
> I’m sorry, but you’ve never had a case. You’ve repeatedly made false statements and accusations despite having before you clear evidence to the contrary.
Hey, that’s my line, no fair stealing it.
Greg wrote:
> Why can’t people understand that I don’t believe in a god exactly the same way I don’t believe in a 8-headed invisible flying pig monkey.
Hey, don’t get me wrong, *I* understand you. Whether there’s a supreme being is not the sort of thing science has any business placing bets on. Whether there’s a supreme being that has 8 heads, is invisible, and is a flying pig monkey, is, *for me*, less likely than whether there’s a supreme being by, oh, I’d say more than a trillion to one, and I wouldn’t object to science betting against that. But not for you, clearly. I understand you because you believe that there absolutely cannot be a supreme being, regardless of how many heads or other weird features it might have, and therefore that the fair odds against any such thing is infinity to one, same odds for both. That’s fair enough, that’s your belief, I understand you on that.
> Seems to me he is trying to make the English language less powerful, not more.
Could you expand on that? I’m all for powerful language, but if your idea of “powerful language” is drawing distinctions that go over ordinary people’s heads, that’s not “powerful,” that’s just plain confusing. Language derives its power from clarity, not from picayune distinctions of the kind I think you’re talking about, unless I’ve misunderstood you (always a possibility).
Peter-W wrote:
> If it were, he would have continued to debate and CONCEDED where the debating was against him. Failing to have one’s mind changed by the process of debate is, to me a big error.
Amen to that. Whereas Austin has never conceded a single point, I conceded a point a while back with “Your point is very valid and well taken. Those religions that behave as you describe put themselves in a weak position.” Failing to have one’s mind changed by the process of debate is indeed a big error, as you say. What Austin says about Webster and OED is clearly contradicted by what’s written in them, as anyone can verify for themselves just by opening the dictionary. He’s never conceded that, instead he just keeps maintaining the same tired old fallacy he’s been pushing for years. But I’m not surprised, it would be very unexpected if he suddenly surrendered after all these years. Austin will never concede any substantive point. Big error.
> but to just say “I rest my case” is such an intellectual copout.
On TV “I rest my case” is code for “the show is named after me” (Perry Mason, Rumpole of the Bailey, etc.—when did you ever hear the losing side say “I rest my case”?) In the real world it means “I’ve addressed all my opponent’s arguments that appear to be worth addressing.” The opponent may also have made some weak arguments, but it’s a waste of time arguing against those because any jury that can’t see what’s illogical about them is not going to be able to see what’s logical about your arguments. For that kind of a jury you’re better off with melodrama than logic.
If Austin has a substantively new argument in support of his position that he hasn’t previously brought forward I’m happy to address it. My sense however is that this isn’t going to happen. The arguments Austin has been making in this debate are the same tired ones he’s been making for years, based on his novel interpretations of the dictionary. If you buy his interpretations then it makes sense that you also buy his argument (which obviously I don’t).
Unless this argument unexpectedly takes an interesting new turn, I suggest we all rest our respective cases.
Greg wrote
> For a long time I’ve questioned the efficacy of the term ‘atheist’.
Couldn’t agree more. What mystifies me is that if Austin’s primary goal is to highlight the bad things some Christians do, which is the big picture I get from all the stuff he writes, how does my definition of “atheist” (one who denies the existence of a god) make his life any harder than his broader definition?
But if that’s not his goal and all he wants to accomplish is to straighten us all out on the meaning of the word “atheist,” then an easy solution there is simply to stop arguing over what it means and do what Greg does: come up with some other more neutral term that conveys more clearly whatever distinction it is one wants to draw.
Before the likes of Austin created this situation, it was perfectly clear to students of religion that an atheist was someone who said there wasn’t a god and an agnostic was someone who didn’t know (with the various shades of meaning of those terms I went into in an earlier message). With Austin trying to confuse the heck out of us by telling us that only he and his friends understand the dictionary and the rest of us have no clue how to read dictionaries, the options are either to say Austin is an idiot, or to do as Greg does and stop using the word “atheist” on the ground that Austin is a genius who has realized that the people are using the term incorrectly. If we’re all in agreement with the latter, let’s all agree to stop using the term “atheist.”
If you mean pocket abridged dictionaries, they sometimes give false impressions for the sake of brevity. Comprehensive, unabridged dictionaries are more reliable. I’m not surprised you could find an abridged dictionary that, with enough hops, gives the impression that “deny” is the same as “disbelieve,” but once again you have to pay attention to the fact that they are presented as separate meanings in the definition of atheism. Or doesn’t that matter to you?
Conceding a point would entail retracting the original claim of yours which proved to be unwarranted.
Only Webster can be interpreted as trying to present deny and disbelieve as equal, and you may be forgetting that I didn’t claim that no dictionaries ever do this. So, showing one example of something that I said was rare is hardly a point for me to concede.
Since when does any dictionary define “novel interpertations” as “the plain, common definitions”? Even in the one case where you can find an apparent equivalency between deny and disbelieve, that’s via the last definition of disbelieve — the first and primary definitions are exactly what I’ve been saying they are.
Finally, you admit that it’s your definition.
You consistently ignore the fact that this leaves open the position of simply not believing. I’m curious what term you’d use for that.
At any rate, the definition I’m using has been in use by atheists and freethinkers since at least the 19th century. There’s nothing “novel” here, except insofar as your own experiences and knowledge are concerned.
I’m not sure that you do understand. It’s got nothing to do with odds nor am I referring to a supreme being with the pig monkey. It’s just a freak creature I imagined on the spot. I wasn’t using the spaghetti monster. (In hindsight I shouldn’t have said invisible) Let me put it another way…
I don’t believe in a god(s) in exactly the same way that I don’t believe the Earth is flat.
Are you trying to insinuate that I’m actually agnostic in some form because you think I’m “betting against it” (albeit at infinity to one) rather than non belief in it?
> I don’t believe in a god(s) in exactly the same way that I don’t believe the Earth is flat.
But there is strong, in fact irrefutable, scientific evidence against the Earth being flat. If the evidence against there being a god were as strong I’d be the strongest kind of atheist possible. As it is there is not a shred of evidence one way or the other for the absence of a supreme being (although plenty of people will insist strenuously that there’s tons of evidence for a god, none of which science has found at all convincing however).
But that doesn’t contradict what you said. You believe in a god for exactly the same reason you don’t believe the Earth is flat, namely that both are false. If that’s not your reason then I don’t understand you and would like to know your reason. If it is your reason then what do you mean when you say I don’t understand you?
Depends on how “god” is defined.
And there are people who sincerely believe the Earth is flat – who say that the evidence against this is no better than the evidence against the existence of “god”.
> Depends on how “god” is defined.
In what way? Whatever definition of “god” you take as the one to go with the definition of “atheist,” strong evidence against that kind of god would make me that kind of atheist.
> And there are people who sincerely believe the Earth is flat – who say that the evidence against this is no better than the evidence against the existence of “god”.
Right, it’s hard to argue with people like that about either thing when they put the evidence for each on an equal footing. Wikipedia has a long article on the Flat Earth Society, which includes some humorous parts in the Origins section, also see the Talk (Discussion) page. It’s a nice question how many people in the society don’t really believe the earth is flat, and how many not in the society do. There’s some idle speculation there that flat-earthers are mostly creationists but who knows? I wonder how flat-earthers account for the fact that ships and planes follow great circles. I guess they must just assume that the whole world has conspired to lie to them about the courses all navigators have plotted since the globe was invented. (Before that presumably navigators just steered by the compass, following what’s called a rhumb line, see Wikipedia, which is a bit out of the way on long voyages compared to a great circle.)
Some definitions make testable predictions which, if falsified, are unambiguous evidence against that “god” existing. Other definitions are so vague that they defy testing — but are also therefore rather useless.
I’m sure you’ve heard of the deist “watchmaker” god — it created the universe then left it alone to run its course. Well, most alleged gods are not watchmaker gods. Most believers insist on the existence of a god that interacts with the universe in some fashion. Any such interaction is, in principle, testable. It might be harder in the case of rare miracles or it might be easier if it’s claimed that a god has a constant, active involvement to sustain existence itself.
To put it another way, most alleged gods are meddlesome and interfering. Such interfering should, in principle, leave evidence. Theists sometimes try to get around this by re-defining their god in ways that make it very vague or unfalsifiable, but that ultimately makes it meaningless as well. A god whose existence is indistinguishable from nonexistence might as well be said to just not exist.
“Atheist” is someone who doesn’t believe in any gods, however they are defined. Atheists recognize that there are many alleged gods, all defined in different ways (as well as any number of alleged gods that they haven’t heard of yet). Atheists just don’t accept as true any of the gods alleged thus far to exist.
> Other definitions are so vague that they defy testing — but are also therefore rather useless.
What about the intermediate case of definitions that aren’t vague but defy testing? They could be very useful to people that believe in such a god, by giving them a sense of purpose for their life that they might not otherwise have, or an ultimate moral adjudicator that they can turn to (with or without professional assistance), or a carrot-and-stick god that regulates behavior by matching treatment in the afterlife to behavior on earth.
Physics has its well-defined but untestable gods. The Higgs boson gives us insight into the origin of mass after the Big Bang, but we currently have no way of testing it, and the many billions of dollars now being spent on catching a glimpse of the Higgs come with no guarantee that we will ever actually find it. For now it is just a theory, and might well prove to be forever an untestable theory, which would enormously sadden physicists since they would then not know whether to continue to believe in the Higgs boson. Leon Lederman has called it the god particle, and if things go badly for it, it may take on even more of the characteristics of a god than Lederman had in mind.
An even more extreme example is string theory, a very precisely defined theory which has yielded enormous insights into what the origin of the universe *might* have been like, yet which is very likely to be forever untestable even if true, and might turn out to be demonstrably false. If it is never shown false, and cannot be tested, the only difference between string theory and a god is that string theory has more mathematics. At that point the dictionaries might need to strengthen the definition of “god” with the extra requirement of “nonmathematical” or “nonscientific,” which would lead to some really interesting debates!
> “Atheist” is someone who doesn’t believe in any gods, however they are defined.
I thought you said atheism was broadly defined, that sounds a bit narrow. What if I flatly claim that there is no Supreme Being of any kind and I have no use for that definition of god. Surely every dictionary would say I am an atheist. Name one that wouldn’t (and this time cite the actual definition like I do, don’t just wave your hands and claim almost all dictionaries take your side).
But this now leaves me free to define a god to be a spirit that lives within me and goads me to good deeds during the day and shows me scary, sci-fi, and x-rated movies at night while I sleep, for my education and entertainment. There may be no such spirit, even though I’m convinced by what seems to me the incontrovertible evidence of its tremendous impact on my life.
On the other hand my definition says nothing to rule out the possibility that medical science will one day be able to watch the spirit at work and describe its shape, which parts of my body it visits most often, and what it’s made of−it might consist of pinched states of the vacuum of the kind Feynman described with Feynman diagrams, or Roger Penrose’s quantum microtubules that he conjectures could be responsible for our stream of consciousness.
That’s not a definition of a god that is “too vague to be useful,” yet it has a potential testability midway between the Higgs boson and string theory, about the same as Penrose’s microtubules (which it might even be made of, though I think Penrose is hallucinating on that one, he’s great at physics and geometry but not good at logic). I would certainly worship such a god if I thought it would improve relations between us, but more likely I would probably believe that it is not a vain god and would just modestly laugh off worship as time better spent on other things.
Now you said “any definition of god.” What I’ve described is a definition of a “god.” If I believe in it, even if only to give me the warm feeling of knowing that there’s a cohesive and socially responsible entity running my life and not just some huge complicated mesh of very tiny mousetraps going off and resetting themselves without any specific purpose in mind, then according to you I’m not an atheist. Yet I judge myself an atheist because the dictionary tells me I’m one, and I believe the definition of “atheist” is broad enough to allow me to qualify as one. Your narrower definition would seem to disqualify me.
Now imagine I’m living in some country that executes Cline-atheists, those meeting your condition. Despite my emphatic rejection of any Supreme Being I insist that I’m not a Cline-atheist because I believe in some definition of a god. They accept my argument. Sometime later the news arrives that medical science has confirmed my beliefs experimentally. I was right, there is a god, I shout triumphantly. But they reject my Cline-atheism on the ground that I believe only scientifically proved facts: what I am claiming to be a god is a pointless word-game designed to keep me alive. I am executed at dawn.
But if I was seen to have been playing a game after the discovery, then I must have been playing a game from the beginning, because I did nothing since then to change my own circumstances. So they shouldn’t have bought my argument in the beginning and should have executed me right away as an atheist who was just playing a game of words. But that would be tantamount to their rejecting Cline-atheism and working with the broader definition that I privately felt qualified me as an atheist even though I was happy to pretend to accept the Cline definition of atheism because it gave me an extra lease on life, however guilty I might have felt about living that lie.
I can’t conceive of such a definition, unless it’s a watchmaker-type god that has no impact on reality. In that case, we’re at the point of “existence is indistinguishable from nonexistence” I think.
Oh, people might find such a concept personally useful — it’s the reality of the concept that’s useful, though. So again, we’d seem to be at “existence is indistinguishable from nonexistence” because you don’t need a real god for the same “usefulness,” right?
I’m not sure we’re using “untestable” in the same way. I mean untestable in principle — there is no set of possible circumstances where the presence of particular facts would point to or away the existence of the thing being tested for.
The Higgs boson has not been observed, but it’s existence is falsifiable. It can be used to make specific predictions which can be tested for, even if we can’t yet. Special Relativity was at such a point, once.
I wouldn’t call it “very precisely defined.” It’s still very tenuous and there’s reason to deny that it qualifies as a “theory” in the same way that evolution and plate tectonics are theories. It’s more a hypothesis — a potentially fruitful one, but it still has a long way to go. In fact, one of its problems is that it may not really be falsifiable.
No, that’s about as broad as you can get. How could it be broader?
Well, assuming that you don’t believe in any gods defined any other way (like Odin), then you’re an atheist.
However, if you believe in some non-supreme-being that you consider a “god,” then you’d be a theist.
Some dictionaries used try to define atheism solely in relation to just the sort of deity that is common in western monotheistic religions, but that’s just silly. If we accepted such a definition, a devout adherent of the ancient Greek pantheon (yes, they still exist) would be an atheist. There are no words adequate to describe how silly such a position is. A person who believes in several non-supreme gods is a theist. Such a person can’t be called an atheist merely because they don’t believe in the sort of god which western monotheists prefer.
You’re a theist if you believe in the traditional monotheistic deity of western religion. You’re also a theist if you believe in the Greek pantheon. You’re also a theist if you believe that a tree in your backyard is a god. You’re also a theist if you believe the universe is “god” (though you get a special theist label: pantheist). It’s little more than ethnocentrism and cultural arrogance to define such a broad category as “theism” solely according to the traditions of one region of the world.
…to be anything. Well, how’s that different from just about every other sort of theism? Your new brand of god isn’t any less respectable than older brands of god just because yours is younger. Or to put it another way, theirs isn’t better than yours just because theirs is old.
A theist is someone who believes in at least one god of some sort. What qualifies as “god” has varied widely across cultures and throughout history.
Theism is not limited only to believe in God.
The problem is that you’re relying on a definition of theist that is far too narrow — and not all dictionaries define it as narrowly as you’re using here. They may give a narrow definition of god as the first one, but they give a lot more as well — and those definitions are what allow the hypothetical-you which you described to be a theist.
What you described was theism. It was an unusual form of theism, but it was still theism. You aren’t an atheist if you believe in anything you consider divine. It doesn’t matter if this “divine” is single or multiple, traditional or new, transcendent or immanent, natural or supernatural.
> You aren’t an atheist if you believe in anything you consider divine. It doesn’t matter if this “divine” is single or multiple, traditional or new, transcendent or immanent, natural or supernatural.
I see, so no limits of any kind on “divine” then. Ok, so if I believe in Bette Midler and I consider her divine, in particular single, new, immanent, and natural, then I’m not an atheist, right?
I would say that either you inadvertently left out a fifth classifier, or your definition of “atheist” is narrower than others which would make me an atheist.
Your problem is that you’re trying to have your cake and eat it too. You want a definition of “atheist” that is broad at the same time you want a definition of “theist” that is broad. There’s an uncertainty principle here that doesn’t let you have both. Good luck trying to formulate definitions of “atheist” and “theist” that are both broad!
> I can’t conceive of such a definition,
This seems like the perfect point on which to sort everyone out. If you can conceive of such a definition, go to point A. If you can’t, go to point B where Austin is standing. We wait a little bit, then count how many people are at each point.
Not everyone can think outside the box. Those who can are more likely to end up at point A, those who can’t at point B. Neither is bad, thinking outside the box is a little weird, thinking inside the box is a little unimaginative, but let’s not get too judgmental here.
> Oh, people might find such a concept personally useful — it’s the reality of the concept that’s useful, though. So again, we’d seem to be at “existence is indistinguishable from nonexistence” because you don’t need a real god for the same “usefulness,” right?
With that argument you could show that someone who doesn’t take their placebo will get better just as quickly as someone who does. This is not borne out by experience with placebos. Many people are dependent on their mental crutches. Trying to convince them they don’t need those crutches by pulling them out from under them doesn’t work and is simply cruel.
> I wouldn’t call it [string theory] “very precisely defined.”
Then you don’t know much about string theory. The underlying principle of string theory is the holographic principle, on which all variants of string theory depend, which is very precisely defined, and which explains why information that seems to be destroyed by being sucked into black holes is in fact conserved.
I’m getting the feeling you live in a make-believe world of your own where you define terms without worrying too much about how the leading US dictionaries like Webster define them, and make your own judgments as to how the world works without worrying too much about how the scientific community thinks it works.
> No, that’s about as broad as you can get. How could it be broader?
We may not be on the same page with the definition of “broad.” For me one definition is broader than another when it allows more possibilities. For example “teacher” is broader than “French teacher.” What definition of “broad” are you using?
> What you described was theism. It was an unusual form of theism, but it was still theism.
You didn’t address my main point. If what I believe turns out to be true, at that point am I still a theist, or have I turned into a clairvoyant?
Or are you claiming that all clairvoyants are theists regardless of whether or not they are eventually proved correct?
You mean, you see nothing that prevents the label “divine” from being applied to pretty much anything? Well, right.
No more than a person who believed in the divinity of Caesar was an atheist.
Now, you might dispute whether the label “divine” should be applied to such people. Presumably, there’s a reason why the label is being applied — as in, maybe the believer thinks this divine-person has super powers? It’s legitimate to ask what that reason is and then seeing if the reason is valid. If not, then it’s fair to deny that the “divine” label is valid.
Good luck? It’s already done: theists believe in at least one god of some sort; atheists don’t believe in any. There’s no contradiction and no “uncertainty principle” that interferes in any way.
Except that I did give an example of that type of definition.
Instead of focusing on “thinking outside the box,” maybe you should focus on reading what I write before responding to it.
I didn’t say that the believer would be in the same position if they denied that their god was real. The issue, I thought, was strong atheism and so my point was simply that under the conditions you describe, the existence of the alleged god was indistinguishable from its nonexistence and, therefore, it might as well be treated be the nonbeliever as not existing.
I wouldn’t call myself an expert on theoretical physics, but I know enough to recognize that there have been serious problems in falsifiability which, in turn, derive from problems with precise definitions.
Your “feeling” might be more relevant if it weren’t for the fact that I actually use what’s found in comprehensive, unabridged dictionaries and quote them at length. This is such a problem for you that you have actually had to attribute falsehoods to me merely to keep your “case” going and give the appearance of having something substantive to say.
I use the same — and I notice you didn’t answer my question. How would you make the definition of atheist “broader” than “doesn’t believe in any gods,” regardless of how “god” is defined? You seem to want to narrow the definition to the denial of just one particular type of deity out of all the different types of deities which people have or can believe in.
I have to say, though, that I appreciate your taking the time to explain this. By asserting that a person can be an atheist if they deny the existence of a Supreme Being god, even if they believe in any number of other beings they call “gods,” you reveal how truly warped your idea of “atheism” has been all along.
I absolutely did address the point when I said that what you describe is theism. If what you describe is theism then, necessarily, the hypothetical-you is a theist. You seem to be suggesting that a person isn’t a theist if it turns out that their god can be scientifically proven, which would be nonsense. If we had scientific proof of the Christian god, Christians would be theists, not clairvoyants. If you believe in something you think is divine, you’re a theist if you can’t scientifically prove it (whether “it” is its existence or “it” is the presence of the qualities you think makes it divine) and you remain a theist if, at some point later on, you can prove it.
My thought:
Deny is unambiguous where disbelieve is non-specific. Deny means that there is explicitly no supporting evidence to the contrary yet there is evidence to the deniability, disbelief is not having evidence either way.
By asserting that a person can be an atheist if they deny the existence of a Supreme Being god, even if they believe in any number of other beings they call “gods,” you reveal how truly warped your idea of “atheism” has been all along.
Well, several things here. First off, both of us are in effect claiming the other’s definition is warped, but it smacks of desperation to come out and actually put it that way. And it’s truly tacky to tack on “truly.”
Second, if it turns out that “supreme” is in fact an official requirement (presuming you aren’t the ultimate adjudicator of these things, which I agree is presumptuous of me) then the epithet “truly warped” ricochets off me back to you.
Third, if what you’re calling “warped” is the definition used to illustrate my first example (the spirit within, Midler being the second example), that’s not my idea of atheism, it’s part of my trying to get you to be more specific about your definition, which is currently too vague to qualify as “warped.”
You were emphatic that worshipping a medically proven phenomenon counted as theism, but said that worshipping Midler would require a “valid reason” for doing so in order to count as theism, for example whether the worshipper was attributing super powers to her.
This is vague on several points.
First, what are the “valid reasons” for qualifying as a theist?
Second, why is the situation more clear-cut for the spirit within than for Midler if both of them are ordinary real-world phenomena? If I worship the spirit within while acknowledging that no super powers are involved, has my reason become invalid? Can I make it valid simply by reneging and saying it has super powers after all, despite medical science denying this?
Third, what exactly is a “super power”? A power that is not in accord with how we understand the real world to work? If I explain something by ascribing a power unknown to nature to it, am I treating it as a god? What about light? Huygens said light worked by waves, but the world instead believed Newton who said it worked by particles. So according to the world Huygens was accounting for light by ascribing supernatural powers to it. Surely you would not want to disqualify Huygens as an atheist on that account. In which case, when do super powers come into play? Is tight underwear a requirement? How tight is Midler’s underwear?
A clear definition would be one that answered these questions without your having to make it up as you go along.
Your “feeling” might be more relevant if it weren’t for the fact that I actually use what’s found in comprehensive, unabridged dictionaries and quote them at length.
Not in this discussion you haven’t. Instead you seem to be expecting us to read your collected works as though you were the authority on the subject. My authority on US usage of the English language is Webster, not you. You dismissed as unimportant that Webster disagrees with you, on the ground that the other dictionaries do agree with you. No doubt you have long and sophisticated arguments in your writings as to why the world supports you, but that’s a waste of valuable internet bandwidth if the preeminent authority contradicts you.
Once again, let me quote from Webster. (Previously it was for “disbelieve”, on which Webster contradicted you but you dismissed Webster as “just one dictionary” and said you never claimed every dictionary supported you. You also seem to think that “abridged” means “unreliable” but according to Webster it just means “condensed, shortened.” But then you don’t accept Webster as an authority anyway so why did I bother pointing that out, silly me.)
Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language UNABRIDGED, defines “atheist” as
disbelieving or denying the being of a supreme God.
(Recall earlier that Webster gave “reject as untrue” as a meaning for “disbelieve”; here “deny” spells that out on the spot without forcing the reader to chase down the definition of “disbelieve”.)
Webster is the authoritative source on US usage of the English language. That is therefore what I am basing my understanding of the concept on. I don’t have the budget or time to buy however many different unabridged dictionaries there are and read them all every time I want to look up a word and put the question to a vote between them. It is much simpler to just look up the word in the accepted authority.
You would appear to disagree with Webster on at least two points.
First you reject Webster’s second meaning. As I pointed out earlier, this is the meaning ordinary people ascribe to it, at least until the possibility of a distinction between “not believe” and “believe not” is brought to their attention (and how often does that happen in ordinary conversation?) obliging them to acknowledge the validity of the first definition, “disbelieving”.
Second it requires the object of worship to be a supreme God. You however are fine worshipping any little thing that has super powers, even if there are dozens of them on every supermarket shelf, or if each of us has one running around inside us.
How would you make the definition of atheist “broader” than “doesn’t believe in any gods,” regardless of how “god” is defined?
We are using “broad” with opposite meanings. For you, “broad” means “strong” as in broad-shouldered: to require someone to believe in no gods at all before they count as an atheist is stronger than requiring just that they don’t believe in a supreme God. For me, “broad” means “wider range of options”: if you define an atheist to be someone who believes in no gods at all, that narrows my options for qualifying as an atheist and therefore is not as broad as defining an atheist who does not believe in a supreme God, since now more people qualify, in particular those who do believe in the god responsible for their street block but not a supreme God.
If we had scientific proof of the Christian god, Christians would be theists, not clairvoyants.
Excellent. Your position on this point is unambiguous and clearly stated. I think this would make a great topic for a debating club. The teams could call themselves pro-Cline and anti-Cline. Already I can see some great arguments for both sides.
Kirk Landreneau wrote:
Deny is unambiguous where disbelieve is non-specific.
Would you therefore rule out the meaning of “disbelieve” as “reject as untrue”?
When you assert an absurd definition that contradicts standard usage, “warped” is being overly kind to you.
Believing in something you consider divine.
I never said anything was more clear-cut.
Depends on the person claiming that it exists.
I am an authority on the subject, and I have backed up my position with numerous citations.
I have done so as well, and long before you did it. Webster’s definitions of atheism and theism agree with what I have been saying, not with you. This is demonstrated quite clearly by the fact that Webster makes a distinction between disbelieve and deny.
There you go, lying again about what I have written.
I’ll point out that an unabridged dictionary definition is longer than what you quoted. Obviously you’ve left something out… maybe something that doesn’t match what you’re claiming here? That would be lying by omission.
No, we’re not. That’s another lie.
You can’t see anything beyond your own lies about others. You’ve constructed a fantasy world where people are only saying what you attribute to them and books only say what you choose to quote.
It’s bad enough that you insist on constructing comments built out of nothing but lies, but such obvious lies is intolerable. It’s nothing more than trolling, posting for no reason but to elicit a reaction. The only reaction I have is to point out all your lies. And to withdraw your posting privileges because I just don’t have the time to waste on someone interested more in lies than on substantive, serious discussion.
Sojourner (41) Apart from a waste of time and space arguing semantics. Like eating sauce without the sausage.
“Being like a cornered cat?”
Pray tell, how does a mouse corner a cat?
tomedgar@halenet.com.au
I think that you have to deny the existence of a higher power to be an atheist. The nature of a refusal to deny it simultaneously admits the possiblity, therefore is agnostic. Either you believe, and are a theist; or you disbelieve, and are an atheist. If you believe in a higher power, but do not discount the possibility that it does not exist, you are agnostic. If you disbelieve in a higher power, but do not discount the possibility that it really does exist, then you are agnostic. Agnostic encompasses everything that is not absolute belief or absolute disbelief in the existence of a god or gods
This is my personal answers to the following questions, to demonstrate a point.
Do I believe or disbelieve that a god exists? I do believe that a god exists, but I do not adhere to a religion, more of a general faith that there is a higher power.
Do you affirm or deny that a god exists? neither, i admit the possiblity that my beliefs may be wrong, acknowledging that either there is a god and i believed in the wrong one, or that there may not even be one (remember the forces at work in the universe, even if not divine, are far beyond the ability of the human mind to comprehend, opening vast amounts of room for wrong, compared to room for only one right, and i’m not arrogant or egotistical enough to think im the one who got it right)
My point is, that the questions are mutually exclusive and that seems to be a source of much of this debate.
Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. This is because they are about separate issues: belief and knowledge. They are related, obviously, but still separate. The answer to the question “do you believe” does not answer the question “do you know for sure,” and vice-versa.
That’s agnostic theism.
That’s agnostic atheism.
Sorry, I don’t comprehend what “absolute” is supposed to mean when coupled with “belief.”
what an utterly frustrating conversation based on semantics. It tires me greatly to have to repeatedly teach uneducated people the meanings of straight- forward words and to incessantly(figure of speach conveying frustration for the dishonest and/or genuinely ignorant among us) explain attempts to evade direct intent or understanding by playing games or making ASSUMPTIONS.
I don’t believe in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus. Does that make me religious? No,
i can’t believe i just spent all that time reading this thread. i really thought i was going somewhere. talk about much ado about nothing!
i don’t believe. how hard is that. i never knew it was that hard to know what an atheist is, or it required a fist fight to define the terms. i’m tired. i’m going to bed. goodnight.