The Futile Arguments Thread

[Inevitable Droid]

The world of demanding that people accept the definitions of agnostic atheist, apatheist, gnostic atheist and all the rest brings a process of forcing people into a logical process that kills off free thought.  Free thought depends on people being able to define their own concepts, if necessary using existing words, not to accept a framework of linguistic logic of someone else's invention.

Three comments:
1. If I use a word without offering a definition, I have to expect people to interpret the word as it's commonly used.
2. If I offer a specific definition so people know how I'm using the word, this is generally effective and efficient.
3. In some contexts, some words are such a part of the framework that offering idiosyncratic definitions will tend to hinder rather than facilitate communication.  In the context of this message board, atheist is such a word, as is agnostic and also apatheist.  

And incidentally I would go even further in defining my atheism - the introduction of the concept of 'belief' actually confuses it a lot - and if you accept an atheist as being someone who denies the existence of god, which is a commonly-used definition, we can dispense with the concept of belief altogether.

Why do you deny God?  

This is important because if we're not careful an atheist agenda very quickly becomes a solely rationalist agenda - one which only believes what there is evidence to believe and applies the scientific method to everything in their life, not just to scientific processes in the laboratory.

In my case atheism is in fact the direct result of only believing what there is evidence for, and applying the scientific method to everything in life.

The problem is that this kind of rationalism is oppressive.

I don't find it so.  More on this below.

Far from being a recent invention it is the basis of enlightenment rationalism - which brought many advantages but developed alongside and in many ways in a complementary way to both capitalism and modern religion, albeit with some notable exceptions during the compromise-seeking phase of the enlightenment, for example Galileo's excommunication.  To fail to see the risks associated with inheriting this kind of rationalism is to place ourselves in a vulnerable position to the authoritarianism of capitalism and the ruling elite, who are well versed in using rationalism as a propaganda weapon.

How does rationalism become a propaganda weapon?  I tend to view emotionalism as the province of propaganda.  Rationalism is aligned with skepticism, which is tbe bane of all propagandists.

The symbolic consequence of it is the atheist who in the afterlife, on discovering a convincing proof of the existence of god, immediately loses all independent thought and sinks to his knees worshipping Him.  I'd go for the Molotov cocktail approach, personally.

Depends on what sort of God we're talking about.
 

God is an old bloke with a long beard who sits on a cloud.  Metaphorically, anyway.

I have to ask again how you define God.  I can't interpret your various comments without that definition established.

There is nothing about being an atheist that imposes any obligation whatsoever to justify one's belief.

Why do you say that?  I would have said that all beliefs must be justified.

I'll stop here as I would only end up repeating questions I've already asked.

[Existentialist]

Thanks for your reply Whitney.  It's rather snappy and not a little angry in tone.  I hope I can defuse this a little.

Free thought depends on people being able to define their own concepts,

Free thought is not making up whatever you want...

Freethought is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that opinions should be formed on the basis of science, logic, and reason, and should not be influenced by authority, tradition, or any dogma.[1] The cognitive application of freethought is known as freethinking, and practitioners of freethought are known as freethinkers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought

I think you're talking about freethought, which appears to be something very specific.  I'm talking about free thought, note the space between 'free' and 'thought', which indicates that the free thinker is free to think anything he or she wants.   Therefore I don't see any reason to refer to your Wikipedia link, I can't learn anything about free thought from it really.  Besides which, can anybody really learn anything about atheism from Wikipedia?  The editing process leads to a lowest-common-denominator kind of explanation for everything which allows for little or no dissent.  It really is not a very good source, I tend not to use it myself.

It is however useful to have a forum like this one, which respects everyone's right to think what they want and to express and share those thoughts with others.  I agree it can be frustrating when others do not agree with one's terms or one's definitions, but I support people's freedom to express such disagreement.  Do you?

If you want to just make up meaning for words you probably shouldn't expect anyone to understand what the hell you are trying to say...most of us use the common definitions and are confused by those who misuse words.

Now, there's really no need to bring hell into this.  That really is a rather theistic mode of drama and I would suggest rather inappropriate for at atheist forum.  I know I've done it myself but I always admit it openly and am rather tongue in cheek about it.  Your use of the expression makes you sound angry in a theistic fire-and-brimstone sort of way, which rather negates the point you're trying to make.  As it happens you seem to be saying that words must only be used according to what the majority of people think they mean.  This sounds to me a bit like the Wikipedia fallacy I alluded to earlier.  I'm interested in what people think, not what they're forced to say by externally-defined ideas.

how loaded a question did you think you could get away with?

Don't know what you mean here...my question wasn't loaded and there isn't anything to get away with.

In that case, thanks for the opportunity to explain myself.  I found your question quite loaded, mainly because it contained an accusation of stubbornness against me, which wasn't warranted.  I had only used the expression "true atheist" the once, so yes, I do think it was somewhat loaded, but you can be defensive about that if you want, I'm all for freedom of speech!

but in the context of when I said that, my point was entirely relevant and you know exactly what I meant, i.e. a person who believes there is no god.

You at the very least implied that a "true atheist" would reject god despite proof.  So, no, I didn't know what you meant and still don't because you don't like to use words properly.  

On the contrary, I like to use words as a tool for expressing my underlying concepts.  This is what I think is the right way of to "use words properly".  As Richard Dawkins has said many times, words are our servants, not our masters.  If you are having trouble understanding the underlying concepts I am trying to express then by all means ask me to elaborate further, I am always open to debate as a way of expressing my real meaning.  But I'm not bound by your or anyone else's definitions.  I recognise that this conflict seems to come up rather regularly in atheist circles, and I can only assume it is another symptom of the rationalist adherence to the concept of objectively-stated truth, in this case the 'usual definition' of words or some such supposedly objective position.  In reality there is no objectivity, though we do often submit to the method of modelling an illusion of objectivity as a way of establishing scientific data.  This method is less relevant to philosophical questions.

The underlying concept of atheism I alluded to did indeed reject god despite proof.  Whether you meant it or not, you yourself excluded the component of belief from your sentence above.  I tend to think atheism is about the complete rejection of God, certainly the denial of His existence - even if a valid proof of his existence is presented.  What you need to do is to show me how and why the rejection of the belief in god is an essential criterion for describing someone as an atheist.  I don't see that.  I think the act of denial of his existence is enough.  Questions of proof are not atheist questions - they are something else: questions of rationality, questions of science, but not questions about the rejection of God.

and if you accept an atheist as being someone who denies the existence of god, which is a commonly-used definition, we can dispense with the concept of belief altogether.  

It's also common use to mean someone who doesn't believe in god (ie one who is not a theist); which is different from deny.

I agree also that it's common to mean someone who doesn't believe in god, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to describe someone who denies the existence of God as an 'atheist'.  Indeed, it is quite legitimate for such a person to reject the idea that people who merely 'don't believe' in God are atheists.  If a person's atheism is something personal to them, the individual, then in their thoughts they must be free to define atheism in their own way.  If you don't want such people to share their thoughts publicly I suppose you have the power to stop them.  That would be a shame, if you really were a believer in free thought.  If you believe that people aren't allowed to make up whatever they want though, you might decide to become more censorious, but that in turn depends on how much trust you have in the human being as an individual.  I hope you make the right choice.

This is important because if we're not careful an atheist agenda very quickly becomes a solely rationalist agenda - one which only believes what there is evidence to believe and applies the scientific method to everything in their life, not just to scientific processes in the laboratory

huh?  There is no atheist agenda...

True, but that wasn't the point I was making.  Would it help if I rephrased this to say 'This is important, because if we're not careful, being an atheist very quickly means being just a rationalist - a person who only believes what there is evidence to believe and applies the scientific method to everything in their life, not just to scientific processes in the laboratory'.  Or would that elicit another "huh?", from which I detect quite a lot of attitude coming from your version of atheism - attitude directed at other atheists, no less!

The problem is that this kind of rationalism is oppressive.  Far from being a recent invention it is the basis of enlightenment rationalism - which brought many advantages but developed alongside and in many ways in a complementary way to both capitalism and modern religion, albeit with some notable exceptions during the compromise-seeking phase of the enlightenment, for example Galileo's excommunication.  To fail to see the risks associated with inheriting this kind of rationalism is to place ourselves in a vulnerable position to the authoritarianism of capitalism and the ruling elite, who are well versed in using rationalism as a propaganda weapon.

So you are saying we should discover truth without evidence or reason?  We do that how exactly?  That doesn't sound like a good idea...what does science and enlightenment thought have to do with capitalism?  I'm not seeing where the dots are being connected.

Nope I'm not saying that.  Firstly I would say there's no such thing as truth - not objective truth anyway.  Objective truth itself is just a modelled version of truth that we invent based on our subjective experience.  Subjective truth I'm a little warmer to.  I respect an individuals right to express their version of the truth, and while I'm willing to listen to people who say they have no evidence or reason for their truth, usually I find that they do actually have evidence and a reasoning process of some kind.  Often their reasoning is very broadly based, and sometimes it seems plainly wrong, but the thing is my criticism of enlightenment rationalism is that it tends to be based on too narrow a base of reasoning.  In other ways, it is too irrational.  That's the problem I see with concepts like "agnostic atheism".  Their rational base is far too narrow to be taken seriously.

I'm amazed (but not entirely surprised) that a seasoned atheist can ask a question like "What does science and (E)nlightenment thought have to do with capitalism?"  If you're not used to joining these dots, I wouldn't expect you to get it on a first reading necessarily.  But essentially I see the Enlightenment, Science and Capitalism as being close philosophical companions from the 15th/16th Century onwards - admittedly sometimes in conflict, but more often in a complementary, symbiotic relationship with each other.  In Science and Capitalism, the arguments and proofs that are put forward for given courses of action tend to be similarly narrowly constrained: scientifically for quite good reasons, but economically for fairly bad ones in terms of the welfare of ordinary people.  I'm happy to elaborate on this further but it may take another thread.

The symbolic consequence of it is the atheist who in the afterlife, on discovering a convincing proof of the existence of god, immediately loses all independent thought and sinks to his knees worshipping Him.

There is no logical reason for why someone who only accepts evidence based truth would suddenly start to worship a god they found out to be real.  They could still decide there is no need to worship it, decide they hate it etc.  And who's to say that if a god were real that it would have a gender let alone be male...are you stuck only on worrying about if the Judeo-Christian god exists?

I agree there's no wholly logical reason why someone would do this. I was just giving one example of the symbolic consequence of the over-dependence on evidence and too narrow a base of reasoning.  Another might be that the former atheist, on discovering that God really exists, might simply join the revolution to oust him.  Which would you do?

Finally, I do not mean to be sexist, but if you can come up with a better shorthand for a personal pronoun for God than "He" I'd be interested.  I'm out to get my ideas across in as few keystrokes as possible, and when comparing "He" with "He, She or It" I'm afraid I tend to resort to the most traditional method, much to my own shame.   I have also tended to capitalise He simply because it makes it easier to break the sentence up and not keep repeating the word 'God' (or 'god', or 'gods', etc etc).  I square all this with my conscience by telling myself I put a lot more effort in arguing against the patriarchal concept of God than half the people who purport to be atheists do, with their off-topic arguments about objective proof and the supremacy of the scientific method!  So no, I'm not stuck only on worrying about the Judeo-Christian god exists, my arguments apply to any god, whether or not you're on speaking terms with him or her.

[Existentialist]

1. If I use a word without offering a definition, I have to expect people to interpret the word as it's commonly used.

It's just as well then that I offered the definition of an atheist fairly early on then - 'someone who denies the existence of God'.  It looks like I've contributed to this thread in keeping with your first point!

2. If I offer a specific definition so people know how I'm using the word, this is generally effective and efficient.

It's just as well then that I offered the definition of an atheist fairly early on then - 'someone who denies the existence of God'.  It looks like I've contributed to this thread in keeping with your second point!

3. In some contexts, some words are such a part of the framework that offering idiosyncratic definitions will tend to hinder rather than facilitate communication.  In the context of this message board, atheist is such a word, as is agnostic and also apatheist.  

I predict I'm not going to be able to keep to this one I think.  Please define "some", "the framework", and "idiosyncratic".

I must apologise I don't have time to respond to your other points, apart from,

There is nothing about being an atheist that imposes any obligation whatsoever to justify one's belief.

Why do you say that?  I would have said that all beliefs must be justified.

Why 'must' all beliefs be justified?  If someone with a learning disability said they were an atheist but was unable to explain why, would you pack them off to church with all the others?  If someone had a brain stem injury and said they were an atheist, but couldn't move the pencil in their toes quickly enough over the keyboard to explain why, would you wheel them off to church in their gurney immediately?  If someone with normal bodily functions and faculties were to say they were an atheist, but couldn't find the words to properly explain why, would you believe them?  If not, in the latter case, why are you discriminating against able-bodied people?  People can describe themselves how they want: Buddhist, Existentialist, Christian, Muslim, Atheist.  I wouldn't demand that their beliefs 'must' be justified.  Anyone who thinks that such a demand is at the core of being an Atheist is misappropriating atheism.  Atheism does not demand reason.  Even though, as it happens, I think my atheism is more reasonable than most!

I've no objection to anyone setting up a Happy Rationalists' Forum.  Leave Atheist Forums to atheists!

[Stevil]

I think you're talking about freethought, which appears to be something very specific.  I'm talking about free thought, note the space between 'free' and 'thought', which indicates that the free thinker is free to think anything he or she wants.

I don't think there is such a thing as complete free thought. Our thoughts are tainted by many things. Notice how there is a generation gap between the thinking of people from different generations. The world is evolving with regards to thought processes, people from the past did not think like we do today.

As it happens you seem to be saying that words must only be used according to what the majority of people think they mean.  This sounds to me a bit like the Wikipedia fallacy I alluded to earlier.  I'm interested in what people think, not what they're forced to say by externally-defined ideas.

Without a common understanding of the language and principles in effect during a dialogue it is near on impossible to understand each other. It would be wise if you know you are differing from the commonly known definition to then state what your definition is otherwise there will be much confusion and ultimately the debate will end up focusing on the definition of the word (if this misunderstanding of definition comes to light at all) but by then the main point is lost, the debaters are emotional and simply want to stop debating.

a person who believes there is no god.

An atheist is a person who lacks a belief in a god. This does not mean they believe there is no god.


You also use the terms "reject" and "deny" with regards to god/s. Personally I would expect this to come from a theist whose starting point is that their god exists and to not accept that would be a rejection or denial. From my atheist stand point the starting point is that there is no god/s and hence no rejection or denial is necessary. I have simply put the theories into the large pile of "to be confirmed".

[Byronazriel]

Denying that gods exist, when they can be/have been proven to exist, is called flat earth atheism. Aheism is the lack of belief in gods. All flat earth atheists are atheists, but not all atheists are of the flat earth variety. Simple as that.

"Agnosticism is the view that the truth of claims relating to god or gods are unknown or unknowable, and non-agnosticim is the opposite position. Namely that they can be, or are known." - Wikipedia.

"Nay Theists are niether atheists or agnostic, they are well aware of the existence of the Gods (or God), and freely admit it; they just refuse to worship them, or to "believe" in them in any strong Spiritual sense beyond merely acknowledging the fact of their existence." -TvTropes.

[Existentialist]

I don't think there is such a thing as complete free thought. Our thoughts are tainted by many things. Notice how there is a generation gap between the thinking of people from different generations. The world is evolving with regards to thought processes, people from the past did not think like we do today.

I don't know what people thought generations ago.  I don't have a telephone line to the 10th century, or any other era, unfortunately.  I don't know if they thought like we did today or not.  Thoughts can only exist in the minds of living people.  Dead people don't have thoughts to convey.  By all means speculate about what they thought - but accept that these are your thoughts, not theirs.  

By free thought I mean a person has the freedom to think without direct interference from anyone else.  I'm a strong advocate of that - are you?

Without a common understanding of the language and principles in effect during a dialogue it is near on impossible to understand each other.

I agree, if two participants to a conversation don't find a common understanding, they won't understand each other.  

It would be wise if you know you are differing from the commonly known definition to then state what your definition is otherwise there will be much confusion and ultimately the debate will end up focusing on the definition of the word (if this misunderstanding of definition comes to light at all) but by then the main point is lost, the debaters are emotional and simply want to stop debating.

I think I have been very helpful in stating my definition.  An atheist is someone who denies the existence of God.  I suspect the emotion you speak of is coming from something else.

An atheist is a person who lacks a belief in a god. This does not mean they believe there is no god.

I accept that is your definition.  My definition is that an atheist is someone who denies the existence of God.  I agree this difference between us creates a tension which will lead to an argument - I'll have my arguments, you'll have yours.  That doesn't mean one of us is objectively wrong.

You also use the terms "reject" and "deny" with regards to god/s. Personally I would expect this to come from a theist whose starting point is that their god exists and to not accept that would be a rejection or denial. From my atheist stand point the starting point is that there is no god/s and hence no rejection or denial is necessary. I have simply put the theories into the large pile of "to be confirmed".

Well there's quite an internal contradiction going on in there but I'm not sure if it was fully intentional.  Your starting point that there is no god sounds exactly like mine - the denial of a proposition.  If your starting point is that there is no god, what do you do when you're asked if there is a god?   I suspect you've got a bit mixed up in your wording.

[Stevil]

I don't know what people thought generations ago.  I don't have a telephone line to the 10th century, or any other era, unfortunately.  I don't know if they thought like we did today or not.  Thoughts can only exist in the minds of living people.  Dead people don't have thoughts to convey.  By all means speculate about what they thought - but accept that these are your thoughts, not theirs.  

By free thought I mean a person has the freedom to think without direct interference from anyone else.  I'm a strong advocate of that - are you?

Have you ever talked to your parents or people of your parents or olders age? Have you ever watched tv programs or documentaries created before your time?

An atheist is a person who lacks a belief in a god. This does not mean they believe there is no god.

I accept that is your definition.  My definition is that an atheist is someone who denies the existence of God.  I agree this difference between us creates a tension which will lead to an argument - I'll have my arguments, you'll have yours.  That doesn't mean one of us is objectively wrong.

Actually I got this definition from Wiki. I simply recite it. I am not entirely sure how to interprete the "denies the existence of God" phrase.

You also use the terms "reject" and "deny" with regards to god/s. Personally I would expect this to come from a theist whose starting point is that their god exists and to not accept that would be a rejection or denial. From my atheist stand point the starting point is that there is no god/s and hence no rejection or denial is necessary. I have simply put the theories into the large pile of "to be confirmed".

Well there's quite an internal contradiction going on in there but I'm not sure if it was fully intentional.  Your starting point that there is no god sounds exactly like mine - the denial of a proposition.  If your starting point is that there is no god, what do you do when you're asked if there is a god?   I suspect you've got a bit mixed up in your wording.

Not really, I started with the view that there is no god/s, I have subsequently seen some theories that there are god/s. If asked I would say there are many theories for (which conflict each other) and there is a theory against. My personal stance is that I doubt very much that there is god/s and even if there was a god I wouldn't know which god theory is correct or even if any of the current theories are correct, maybe the correct one hasn't been written yet. But really there isn't anything conclusive yet, still waiting for some proof. Not holding my breath though.

[LegendarySandwich]

I don't think there is such a thing as complete free thought. Our thoughts are tainted by many things. Notice how there is a generation gap between the thinking of people from different generations. The world is evolving with regards to thought processes, people from the past did not think like we do today.

I don't know what people thought generations ago.  I don't have a telephone line to the 10th century, or any other era, unfortunately.  I don't know if they thought like we did today or not.  Thoughts can only exist in the minds of living people.  Dead people don't have thoughts to convey.  By all means speculate about what they thought - but accept that these are your thoughts, not theirs.  

By free thought I mean a person has the freedom to think without direct interference from anyone else.  I'm a strong advocate of that - are you?

Without a common understanding of the language and principles in effect during a dialogue it is near on impossible to understand each other.

I agree, if two participants to a conversation don't find a common understanding, they won't understand each other.  

It would be wise if you know you are differing from the commonly known definition to then state what your definition is otherwise there will be much confusion and ultimately the debate will end up focusing on the definition of the word (if this misunderstanding of definition comes to light at all) but by then the main point is lost, the debaters are emotional and simply want to stop debating.

I think I have been very helpful in stating my definition.  An atheist is someone who denies the existence of God.  I suspect the emotion you speak of is coming from something else.

An atheist is a person who lacks a belief in a god. This does not mean they believe there is no god.

I accept that is your definition.  My definition is that an atheist is someone who denies the existence of God.  I agree this difference between us creates a tension which will lead to an argument - I'll have my arguments, you'll have yours.  That doesn't mean one of us is objectively wrong.

You also use the terms "reject" and "deny" with regards to god/s. Personally I would expect this to come from a theist whose starting point is that their god exists and to not accept that would be a rejection or denial. From my atheist stand point the starting point is that there is no god/s and hence no rejection or denial is necessary. I have simply put the theories into the large pile of "to be confirmed".

Well there's quite an internal contradiction going on in there but I'm not sure if it was fully intentional.  Your starting point that there is no god sounds exactly like mine - the denial of a proposition.  If your starting point is that there is no god, what do you do when you're asked if there is a god?   I suspect you've got a bit mixed up in your wording.

I'll be blunt here -- your definition of atheist sucks, does not define the majority of people the normal definition of atheist does, and does not help the conversation move on.

[TheJackel]

Title of GOD is a Title of opinion. Thus no god exists or ever existed regardless entities that may or may not exist.

[Byronazriel]

...What?  

[Whitney]

...What?  

ditto

jackel, can you elaborate?

[LegendarySandwich]

I think he means that since the title of God is an opinion, no god has ever existed except in the minds of man.

[Existentialist]

Have you ever talked to your parents or people of your parents or olders age? Have you ever watched tv programs or documentaries created before your time?  

Thank you for narrowing down your delineations of the past a bit.  Anyone I have spoken with who was alive at the time counts for me as having thoughts that I can interpret much more easily in a personal, dynamic, warm, emotional relationship than people who have died and whom I have never met.  If I read a book or watch a documentary about what people were thinking say before my birth, in 1920, then I can only really use my current living experience to interpret their thoughts, so for all I know I might have got it badly wrong when I surmise what they were thinking.

I started with the view that there is no god/s, I have subsequently seen some theories that there are god/s. If asked I would say there are many theories for (which conflict each other) and there is a theory against. My personal stance is that I doubt very much that there is god/s and even if there was a god I wouldn't know which god theory is correct or even if any of the current theories are correct, maybe the correct one hasn't been written yet. But really there isn't anything conclusive yet, still waiting for some proof. Not holding my breath though.

That's fine - I accept that's your view.  I disagree though, because I take the position that there is no God, I'm not hanging around for proof.

[TheJackel]

I think he means that since the title of God is an opinion, no god has ever existed except in the minds of man.

Almost. What it means is that such beliefs and titles are merely just that, and they are solely reliant on only those who give such titles, or believe in such things. Opinions only have worth to that which has the opinion. Hence, what are GOD's without something to grant them such a title? Under this logic GODS are inherently undefined to the extent that anything can be considered a GOD should the title be given. This includes you, the dirt you walk on, myself, birds, existence itself, or anything in or of existence. So either all things are GODS, or there are no such things as GODS!
 

[Stevil]

That's fine - I accept that's your view.  I disagree though, because I take the position that there is no God, I'm not hanging around for proof.

Existentialist - I have just looked up your position on Wikipedia and going by that your label would be Positive atheism or Strong atheism or hard atheism.
"Positive atheism is a term popularly used to describe the form of atheism that maintains that 'There is at least one god' is a false statement"
"Strong atheism and hard atheism are alternates for the term positive atheism"

People on this forum would likely agree with these labels for you.

I went back to ready your original post within this thread and I can see why the majority (if not all) of the readers got confused. You are probably right given your own definition of all the terms and words you have used. But if you continue to hold onto your own definitions you will most likely find everyone (in face to face chats or on other forums) are likely to be as confused as everyone has been here. I think noone has said it better than what Inevitable Droid said "In some contexts, some words are such a part of the framework that offering idiosyncratic definitions will tend to hinder rather than facilitate communication. In the context of this message board, atheist is such a word, as is agnostic and also apatheist".