Before I trouble myself to wade through the rest of your latest post -- if I even choose to do so -- can you please identify where, in that video you posted, Dawkins denies being atheist?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2017 10:03 pm
Richard Dawkins knows the answer, and it's the reason he won't call himself an Atheist -- ...
The meaning of life?
Re: The meaning of life?
Re: The meaning of life?
I was having a little trouble picking up the audio, but in the video you linked, I believe what Dawkins ACTUALLY said was "I don't call myself that" when he was pressed on being called "the world's MOST FAMOUS atheist." A BIG DIFFERENCE from your claim that he DENIED BEING AN ATHEIST.
He also called himself an "agnostic." Of course! All atheists who have any idea of what they are talking about identify as agnostics. Atheism and agnosticism are not contradictory -- they are complementary.
Finally, all theists should also identify as agnostics, but most don't. That is where they are dishonest, in contrast to the honesty of the consistent atheist.
He also called himself an "agnostic." Of course! All atheists who have any idea of what they are talking about identify as agnostics. Atheism and agnosticism are not contradictory -- they are complementary.
Finally, all theists should also identify as agnostics, but most don't. That is where they are dishonest, in contrast to the honesty of the consistent atheist.
- Immanuel Can
- Posts: 22257
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: The meaning of life?
Untrue. An Atheist says, "There is no God." An agnostic says, "I don't know whether or not there is a God." They range from "hard" agnosticism to "soft" agnosticism, depending on whether they say, "I really, really think there may not be a God," or "I am wide open to the possibility, and even yearning for it, but can't quite get there in belief."davidm wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2017 11:07 pm I was having a little trouble picking up the audio, but in the video you linked, I believe what Dawkins ACTUALLY said was "I don't call myself that" when he was pressed on being called "the world's MOST FAMOUS atheist." A BIG DIFFERENCE from your claim that he DENIED BEING AN ATHEIST.
He also called himself an "agnostic." Of course! All atheists who have any idea of what they are talking about identify as agnostics. Atheism and agnosticism are not contradictory -- they are complementary.
But Atheists are notoriously two-faced about this. They want to be Atheists when they want to tell Theists, "You cannot know." But they want to be agnostics when they are criticized for having no basis to say such a thing. Then, like Dawkins, they say, "Well, I just say I believe in no gods, not that I know there is no God." But if that were true, they could make no claims against Theists, so they switch back the minute they are not under scrutiny themselves.
Poppycock. A "consistent Atheist" is a non-evidence Atheist, which means they're no more than an obdurate person with no proof. No wonder, then, that the Bible puts it this way: "The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'"Finally, all theists should also identify as agnostics, but most don't. That is where they are dishonest, in contrast to the honesty of the consistent atheist.
But to state, as Atheism does, "I don't believe, and you can't either, but I have no evidence capable of showing why you can't" is just stupid. There's no plausibility to such a claim. It cannot be justified.
There's nothing honest or consistent about Atheism. There's nothing even remotely intellectual about it.
- Arising_uk
- Posts: 12314
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: The meaning of life?
You still banging on about this?Immanuel Can wrote:...
So the Atheist is in a hopeless position, scientifically. Nothing he can do can justify a blank confidence that there is no God. ...
How many times do you have to be told, a real atheist doesn't believe there is no 'God', there is just no belief in a 'God'. Now your ex-theists might believe there is no 'God' but that's because they believed that there was a 'God' once and now don't and appear pretty angry with those who told them this before they could reason but hopefully they'll grow out of such childish things.
Last edited by Arising_uk on Mon Oct 23, 2017 12:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
- Arising_uk
- Posts: 12314
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am
Re: The meaning of life?
Well apart from the intellectual point that there have been hundreds of 'Gods' so far and not one has been shown to be as real as a tree.Immanuel Can wrote:...
There's nothing honest or consistent about Atheism. There's nothing even remotely intellectual about it.
Re: The meaning of life?
This is so tiresome.
"I lack a belief that God exists is perfectly consistent with, AND, in fact, complementary to "I don't know whether or not there is a God."
This is because statements of lack of belief (predicated on lack of evidence) and statements about knowledge (gnosis) are different things.
Dawkins understands this. You don't.
Can you now please identify for me WHERE in that video he says, as you claimed, that he is NOT an atheist?
Did you also fail to notice how his discussion of 50/50 parallels my own?
Many atheists say "there is no God," but this is usually shorthand for, "I lack a belief that God exists."Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 23, 2017 12:02 am
Untrue. An Atheist says, "There is no God." An agnostic says, "I don't know whether or not there is a God."
"I lack a belief that God exists is perfectly consistent with, AND, in fact, complementary to "I don't know whether or not there is a God."
This is because statements of lack of belief (predicated on lack of evidence) and statements about knowledge (gnosis) are different things.
Dawkins understands this. You don't.
Can you now please identify for me WHERE in that video he says, as you claimed, that he is NOT an atheist?
Did you also fail to notice how his discussion of 50/50 parallels my own?
Re: The meaning of life?
BTW, I already gave you a clear example upthread of how this works:
1. I lack a belief that a supercivilization exists in the Andromeda galaxy, because for now I see no evidence to support the claim. If I acquire such evidence, I will revise my belief accordingly.
2. However, I do not KNOW that such a civilization fails to exist; I don't KNOW whether it exists or not.
Are you really going to tell us you can't understand the difference between BELIEFS and KNOWLEDGE?
1. I lack a belief that a supercivilization exists in the Andromeda galaxy, because for now I see no evidence to support the claim. If I acquire such evidence, I will revise my belief accordingly.
2. However, I do not KNOW that such a civilization fails to exist; I don't KNOW whether it exists or not.
Are you really going to tell us you can't understand the difference between BELIEFS and KNOWLEDGE?
Re: The meaning of life?
Please note that when Dawkins says he is an agnostic, it follows from what I explained to you above that he is NOT denying that he is an atheist. He is an agnostic atheist.
As am I.
It follows from this that honest theists are agnostic theists.
Unfortunately, as we have seen, a great many theists are not honest, pretending to a knowledge that they do not have.
As am I.
It follows from this that honest theists are agnostic theists.
Unfortunately, as we have seen, a great many theists are not honest, pretending to a knowledge that they do not have.
Re: The meaning of life?
One of the most salient features of life on Earth is that WE have never witnessed such evidence separate to one's "personal feelings"; it leads to the inevitable conclusion that none exists. Cold fact! Never having encountered the least objective evidence for such leads to no other conclusion.Immanuel Can wrote:Then just consider that statement for a moment. What can "no evidence exists" mean? It can't mean "I have investigated all possible evidence, and found that none exists." So what can it really mean, except "I don't personally know of any evidence"?surreptitious57 wrote: ↑Sat Oct 21, 2017 7:34 am I make the statement based upon the fact that that no evidence exists...
But those two are not equivalent claims. The fact that you have no knowledge of any such evidence logically does NOT mean no such evidence exists. It means you admit to not knowing...and that's all.
Even "logic" has an expiry date on certain questions where it must "objectively" conclude its services are no-longer applicable since no objective response is possible. The probability for such eventually fades to nothing the longer it takes to receive even a provisional response.
The best an individual can do is hypothesize which logically defaults to having thoroughly subjective values of how meaning is to be rendered in each case!
Your statement...The fact that you have no knowledge of any such evidence logically does NOT mean no such evidence exists forces one to ask...
How long can something remain unknown, impervious to knowing, before it becomes meaningless, contrary to all logic, in persisting to inquire after that which has never yielded a single response in any format?
Your perverse manipulation of logic subsumes hidden or undelivered evidence for that which was never received since the first day we ordered it though you and a multitude of others still consider it a potential receivable!
This statement is mindlessly simplistic as if that's all there's to it!Immanuel Can wrote:In other words, your "objective" claim that there is no "objective" meaning is actually...subjective.
This very common, mundane conclusion is invariably claimed by those who temporarily need to sabotage logic whenever it gets in the way! Under these terms, nothing objective could ever exist except that which is subjectively "agreed to". Logic doesn't work on that foundation. You are clearly oblivious to the paradox shining forth at the core of your own arguments regarding "The meaning of Life"!
One has to understand the nature of a question whether it can even render an "objective" conclusion or inherently impossible, as in this case where the question only pertains to an amorphous meaning completely independent of any objective feedback. It is neither a scientific question or a logical one consisting of pure speculation beyond the confines of logic to yield an objective response.
Last edited by Dubious on Mon Oct 23, 2017 1:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: The meaning of life?
It is not logically required of an atheist that he/she prove that there is no God. In fact, proving a universal negative is impossible -- though I can prove restricted negatives -- I can prove that there is no elephant in my garage by opening the garage door and looking.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 23, 2017 12:02 am Poppycock. A "consistent Atheist" is a non-evidence Atheist, which means they're no more than an obdurate person with no proof.
It is theists who have no proof -- or even evidence (strictly, proof is not required) -- that God DOES exist.
Trot out your evidence for God and we can look at it. I know you think you HAVE given such evidence, but this "evidence" falls far short of the scientific standard, or even the rational standard.
Atheists don't say this. Are you REALLY this confused? Or just kidding?But to state, as Atheism does, "I don't believe, and you can't either, but I have no evidence capable of showing why you can't" is just stupid.
Re: The meaning of life?
No. They are agnostics when they say this.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 23, 2017 12:02 am But Atheists are notoriously two-faced about this. They want to be Atheists when they want to tell Theists, "You cannot know."
Re: The meaning of life?
Perhaps I should amend the above slightly.davidm wrote: ↑Mon Oct 23, 2017 1:49 amNo. They are agnostics when they say this.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Oct 23, 2017 12:02 am But Atheists are notoriously two-faced about this. They want to be Atheists when they want to tell Theists, "You cannot know."
Forget about God. Let’s talk about a teapot.
Claim: a teapot is orbiting between Mars and Jupiter.
Teapotists believe this is true; ateapotists lack a belief in such a teapot.
However, the ateapotist does not claim to KNOW that such a teapot doesn’t exist; he just lacks a belief in it. Thus, automatically, he is agnostic about the teapot.
But — as Dawkins commented in the video, and as I did upthread — what follows from this? That I should ascribe a 50/50 probability to the existence of the teapot, just because I don’t know it doesn’t exist? Ridiculous! We can employ Bayesianism to reduce the probability of such a teapot to near zero for a whole bunch of good reasons.
But of course, the teapotist is perfectly able to PROVE it exists. Just send out a spaceship, find it and bring it back to earth. So, contrary what I wrote above, both the teapotist and the ateapotist CAN know that the teapot exists — just pony up the damned teapot! (Agnosticism is merely the proposition that one does NOT know; not (necessarily) that one CANNOT know — though there may indeed be things about reality that we can’t know because of cognitive closure. For example, a dog is cognitively closed to the true purpose of a book. She not only doesn’t know the book’s purpose, she can’t know it.)
But now the teapotist retorts: can you prove the teapot doesn’t exist?
But it’s not my job to prove it doesn’t exist; it’s your job to prove it DOES exist!
But all right. I’ll be charitable and send out a spaceship to scour every square inch of space between Mars and Jupiter. I find nothing and come back and report: “No teapot!”
Ah-ha! Says the teapotist. You don’t understand! The teapot practices teapot hiddenness; every time you get close to detecting it, it vanishes! Thus, you can never find it!
Oh! OK! If it’s like that, how can I prove, as you asked me to do, that it does NOT exist?
But, if we suppose it is like that, then why would anyone in their right mind believe that such a ridiculous thing DOES exist? Put another way, if it is like that, and does exist like that, why should we care? It’s existence would be completely irrelevant to us.
Re: The meaning of life?
Amen!
Excellent exploration of teapotism!
Those who believe in a teapot, and draw comfort, inspiration from it... GREAT! But to make it any more than a personal experience... a "personal trip"... is fabricated nonsense. Even if a teapot exists, each experience of it is personal.
Re: The meaning of life?
Yes indeed, my bed is not your bed, we each make our own beds and lie in them. So don't expect others to cosy on down with you in your bed of lies either.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Oct 22, 2017 2:35 pm
This is nothing like what I meant. You can say what you will, but please don't "yes indeed" me into your camp.
.
Re: The meaning of life?
If one 'lacked a belief in God' then one would be like a newborn baby, having no true beliefs. If one is an atheist, then that atheism necessarily depends on the belief in God, and thus is a counter-belief that there is no God. If there were a teapot millions of light-years away, one wouldn't lack belief in it unless one has never heard of it, while a-teapotists are the ones who claim that there is no teapot out there. To be agnostic is the only belief that can be both a lack of belief or a belief itself depending upon the conceptual grasping of the ideas of atheism and theism, or the lack of belief in both. In other words, we are born agnostic, while we can become conceptual agnostics through knowledge, and ultimately atheism and theism are beliefs.