to the atheists on the board

[ShoeshineBoy]

Quote from harrytrader:

in general there is today the so called fine structure constant in Universe which is equal roughly to 1/137 (137 is coïncidently the Golden angle but Cosmologist don't refer to it by this name only by the "alpha constant" name) it is known that if this constant was different by only a slight billionth stars couldn't even exist SO the hypothesis that "HE" whatever or whoever "HE" is has FINE TUNED this constant because if "HE" didn't do so by his WILLINGNESS the Universe wouldn't just exist as it exists today: it would be emptiness. “
......
[1/137] is one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to use with no understanding by man. <font color=red>You might say the ‘hand of <b>God</b>’ wrote that number, and ‘we don’t know how He pushed His pencil.</font>’'

Many of the constants of the universe must be tuned to even greater precision than 1/137. According to Alan Guth, who is anything but a Christian, the expansion rate of the universe must be tuned to 1 in 10 to the 55th.

That's one crapload of random universes to create just this one characteristic!

 

[axeman]

Harry... the only person here that is confused is you.

Your sitting here telling an ATHEIST, who is a member of
American Atheists, who has studied atheism for over a decade,
whos definition agrees with the majority of atheists and
philosophers who discuss atheism, that I dont know what
an atheist is

You said: ATHEISM is not based on ANYTHING than the BELIEF OF FREE WILL

This is absoutely NOT the definition of atheism.

Further...
AGNIOSCTISM is the BELIEF that there MAY BE A SUPERIOR CONSCIOUSNESS or INTELLIGENCE

This also does not match well accepted definitions of agnosticism either.

You need to get a lot of facts straight before you attempt
to discuss this any further.


peace

axeman

Quote from harrytrader:

Once again you confuse AGNIOSCTISM and ATHEISM.
ATHEISM is not based on ANYTHING than the BELIEF OF FREE WILL. AGNIOSCTISM is the BELIEF that there MAY BE A SUPERIOR CONSCIOUSNESS or INTELLIGENCE that DESIGNED or to be more explicit FINE TUNED the CONTANTS OF UNIVERSE so that galaxies, stars and accessorily life can appear. Instead of talking in general there is today the so called fine structure constant in Universe which is equal roughly to 1/137 (137 is coïncidently the Golden angle but Cosmologist don't refer to it by this name only by the "alpha constant" name) it is known that if this constant was different by only a slight billionth stars couldn't even exist SO the hypothesis that "HE" whatever or whoever "HE" is has FINE TUNED this constant because if "HE" didn't do so by his WILLINGNESS the Universe wouldn't just exist as it exists today: it would be emptiness. That you call "HE" God or Nature doesn't change the Essence of "HE" or the existence of a possible VOLONTARY DESIGN. The belief in a possible existence of a Designer is indeed an AGNOSTIC BELIEF which is founded on DETERMINISM in Scientific laws and more precisely the existence of apparently FINE TUNED CONSTANTS. There is another BELIEF which is that the existence of the FINE TUNED CONSTANTS by some SUPERIOR BEING or THING or CONCIOUSNESS may be an appearance if the Universe has been selected among many other POSSIBLE RANDOM UNIVERSES: this is called the "Multiverse" hypothesis which is indeed an ATHEIST hypothesis. But this "Multiverse" hypothesis is very recent and not yet widespread among the scientific community so at the moment of History in Science, the balance is more in favor of a DESIGNER if you don't like the term GOD but this DESIGNER has FINE TUNED the CONSTANTS OF UNIVERSE than in favor of a creation of our current Universe by several RANDOM ATTEMPTS so that our universe is just a happy ACCIDENT - but let's even suppose then someone may logically ask but who/what throw the dice then . As you can see the debate can be reduced as in Stock Market around the conflict between Determinism and Randomness. This problematic of FINE TUNED Constants of Universe and God can be illustrated by Richard Feynman's own words :

“[1/137] is one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to use with no understanding by man. <font color=red>You might say the ‘hand of <b>God</b>’ wrote that number, and ‘we don’t know how He pushed His pencil.</font>’'

 

[jem]

n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. The doctrine that there is no deity. (many sources for this definition on the net including merriam webster online dictionary)

this is your quote axeman=

"Atheism is simply a LACK of belief in god."


After checking the net there is an atheist organization that is promoting the idea of strong atheism and weak atheism. I guess your definition would be weak atheism according to some atheists.

This dual definition does not seem to be the dominant understanding. It would seem that this redefining of a word is still a little new age, brave new worldish to me. (I just learned that aldous huxley coined the word agnostic).

 

[axeman]

At least you took the time to check.
Most theists typically ignorantly attack me as a STRONG ATHEIST
without even knowing my position, or knowing the difference
between a weak and strong atheist.

Anyway...I have explained this in detail many times before,
because I agree, it IS confusing.

The LAYMANs definition typically is: Someone who asserts
that god DOES NOT exist.

However... the majority of atheists, and atheistic organizations
I have dealt with consider the WEAK ATHEIST position as
the superior default non-layman definition.

This makes sense, especially since when you break down the
word it LITERALLY translates to "without theism".

The WEAK ATHEIST position is the one which describes the
vast majority of atheists. It is actually QUITE RARE that I come
across a STRONG ATHEIST. In fact... I cant even recall the last time.
I typically consider the strong atheist position as faulty
when stated in general.
Most rational people only take the strong atheist position
for very precise definitions of god they can easily identify
a contradiction in. I do this sometimes. But my default
position is weak atheism.

The dictionary has both definitions, but is not the correct place
to look for a philosophical definition, for the same reason
websters is not the correct place to look for a very accurate medical definition.
Its better to check a medical book.


peace

axeman

Quote from jem:

n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. The doctrine that there is no deity. (many sources for this definition on the net including merriam webster online dictionary)

this is your quote axeman=

"Atheism is simply a LACK of belief in god."


After checking the net there is an atheist organization that is promoting the idea of strong atheism and weak atheism. I guess your definition would be weak atheism according to some atheists.

This dual definition does not seem to be the dominant understanding. It would seem that this redefining of a word is still a little new age, brave new worldish to me. (I just learned that aldous huxley coined the word agnostic).

 

[jem]

I understand your position but I disagree with your point about the dictionary. A dictionary is the perfect place to look for the definition. Over time as your definition becomes more "standard" more dictionaries will give you that "2" for second meaning.

I am sure we have all seen definitions evolve.

Until the definition becomes common usage it would have been better argue that trees may not be strong atheists but they could be weak atheists according the definition preferred by most atheists. Then we would have only seen a debate about whether inanimate objects could have a position or not. Instead of confusing people about what an atheist believes.

 

[ARogueTrader]

It is when a homogeneous group thinks themselves "special" as to need their own lexicon, their own definitions, their own language that you can be rather certain that they are not implementing common sense.

Just because someone was a neo-conservative, and labeled themselves a "compassionate" conservative doesn't make them in any way truly compassionate, it is just their way of spinning fiction out of fact.

It is the practice that defines a man, not his own definitions.

Where is the objectivity of these atheists who tell us that only "they" truly understand their positions and that common understanding is incorrect?

Quote from jem:

I understand your position but I disagree with your point about the dictionary. A dictionary is the perfect place to look for the definition. Over time as your definition becomes more "standard" more dictionaries will give you that "2" for second meaning.

I am sure we have all seen definitions evolve.

Until the definition becomes common usage it would have been better argue that trees may not be strong atheists but they could be weak atheists according the definition preferred by most atheists. Then we would have only seen a debate about whether inanimate objects could have a position or not. Instead of confusing people about what an atheist believes.

 

[axeman]

Completely disagree.

Debating physics with a physicist using websters definition
of technical physics terms would be a huge error.
They are not specific enough and designed for the layman.

You must look elsewhere for a more precise definition.
In technical debates, websters just doesnt cut it.
It can in fact, cause a lot more confusion.

The dictionary is not the authoritative source for
ALL precise definitions. You must go to the experts in the
given fields to get the details.

At least websters lists the definitions of atheist in the dominant/correct order as:
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Listing disbelief FIRST, which is the weak atheist position,
and listing "denies the existence of", which is the strong atheist
postion.

I would wager that over 90% of atheists are weak atheists.
To label them as strong atheists by default is a blatant error.
People who assume atheists are people who DENY the
existence of god, are basically wrong the vast majority of the time.

peace

axeman

Quote from jem:

I understand your position but I disagree with your point about the dictionary. A dictionary is the perfect place to look for the definition. Over time as your definition becomes more "standard" more dictionaries will give you that "2" for second meaning.

I am sure we have all seen definitions evolve.

Until the definition becomes common usage it would have been better argue that trees may not be strong atheists but they could be weak atheists according the definition preferred by most atheists. Then we would have only seen a debate about whether inanimate objects could have a position or not. Instead of confusing people about what an atheist believes.

 

[jem]

We will have to go to the dictionary again axeman. But before I do let me stress I do not belive your definition of lack of belief equals disbelief.


If weak atheism is disbelief that is fine. I have not problem calling weak atheism atheism.

If weak atheism is lack of a belief than I have a problem calling weak atheism atheism.

To me and I suspect others there is a huge philosophical difference between disbelieving and lack of believing.

Merriam websters:

One entry found for disbelief.


: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

 

[axeman]

Good article explaining the details on the definition of atheism:
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/sn-definitions.html

About.com has a good description as well.
This part in particular is VERY interesting:

There is, unfortunately, some disagreement about the definition of atheism. It is interesting to note that most of that disagreement comes from theists - atheists themselves tend to agree on what atheism means. Christians in particular dispute the definition used by atheists and insist that atheism means something very different....snip.....
Why do these errors occur? Why do some theists insist that the broader sense of atheism simply does not exist? Possibly some theists feel that since they are claiming the existence of their god, then anyone who does not agree with them must be claiming the exact opposite - a serious misunderstanding of not only basic logic but also how human belief systems operate.

Another reason for insisting that only the narrow sense of atheism is relevant is that it allows the theist to avoid shouldering the principle burden of proof. You see, if atheism is simply the absence of a belief in any gods, then the principle burden of proof lies solely with the theist. If the theist cannot demonstrate that their belief is reasonable and justified, then atheism is automatically credible and rational. When a person is unable to do this, it can be easier to claim that others are in the same boat than to admit one's own failure.




Seems like the THEISTS are the ones with the problem

Atheists seem very consistent with THEIR definition.
The theists seem to believe they are allowed to define themselves
and also believe they somehow have the right to define the
atheists!! Absurd!

We dont run around telling theists what theists are
But they seem to think this is ok. huh?

peace

axeman

 

[axeman]

If someone has never heard of ANY god and has not fabricated his own...
Then he LACKS a belief in god/gods, and is therefore a weak atheist.


If someone has heard about gods, but rejects it as silly, then he
is also a weak atheist because he still lacks a belief in god/gods
but also disbelieves in god/gods.

If someone has heard about gods and ASSERTS that is so silly
they definitely DONT exist, then they are a strong atheist.

Again.... atheism.... as defined by atheists, and by direct translation
of the word... simply means "without god(s)".

Notice that theism/atheism, unlike agnosticism/gnosticism deal
with BELIEF or a LACK OF BELIEF.

You cant BELIEVE something you are completely unaware of.
You therefore LACK a belief in it, and are a weak atheist.



peace

axeman

Quote from jem:

We will have to go to the dictionary again axeman. But before I do let me stress I do not belive your definition of lack of belief equals disbelief.


If weak atheism is disbelief that is fine. I have not problem calling weak atheism atheism.

If weak atheism is lack of a belief than I have a problem calling weak atheism atheism.

To me and I suspect others there is a huge philosophical difference between disbelieving and lack of believing.