God given rights. Do you really have any?

[Immanuel Can]

I'm just not interested in their views on God...

Fine: but that was nowhere near the question.

The question is, "Do you think they qualify as real Atheists?"

Since you regard the word, "atheist," to have a unique meaning as some kind of belief or creed, there is no way to answer your question as you ask it.

I didn't ask what I thought, RC. I know what I think. I want to ask what YOU want to say. Are these men real Atheists? And if not, why?

To imply, however, that what one does not believe is a creed is an abuse of language.

That objection is not relevant here. Agnosticism is not at issue.

Atheists DO believe something, though. That is, unless you have reasons for us to believe these men simply do not qualify as Atheists.

So do you?

[Dubious]

In addition, it's irrational to regard what history has no record of as a "speculation"!

Actually, that would be perfectly plausible. If someone says they think they know something, but they have no evidence of it at all, the most likely thing it is is a mere speculation.

Yes, that would be true IF that were the case.

But to repeat, it can't be speculation if no proven god entity ever appeared throughout the whole history of oral and written tradition. On the other hand we do know unequivocally that every god that had a name exists only as a scriptural representation, in the case of Jesus, clumsily manufactured unlike most protagonists in actual fiction.

What is known not provisionally, but absolutely based on what history attests to for every such "god encounter", there never was a deity whose appearance and background wasn't first prearranged by humans. The Jesus story is a classic example commencing before his birth and continuing long after he died. That's the reality of it devoid of all speculation. An endless system of lies can be created simply by believing it and just as often being forced to it. But what's most indispensable for this condition to persist is an abridgement of thinking lest its world gets corrupted.

However, if I'm right, then one day you and I will stand before God at the Judgment...each in somewhat different circumstances, admittedly. Until that time, there's everything wrong with acting like that's not going to happen, and it's going to cost you your soul.

So here's the important question out of that: do you really want to wait and see who's right?

Well, aside from sounding like a cheap evangelical commercial with an appended request to send more money, have you ever truly analyzed what an obscene bargain this is, how pathetic this makes both god and humans? It's not unlike being German during the Nazi period and refusing to honor the Nazi flag. The lords of the Nazi party were not pleased and a new home was provided for you in a concentration camp.

How pathetic can a god get? How monstrously egotistical and yet so human in wanting to be serviced by belief, subordinated to it's authority like any Don in a godfather movie. Why must we believe in order to be saved? What is it in one that leads to the other? What sense does it make to believe that the god who supposedly created a hundred billion galaxies in the universe requires that!

Also I can't imagine a god who'd let you get past St.Peter's gate if the main reason for believing is to ensure your future after the current one expires. Whether I believe in god or not, I could never imagine it as being in the insurance business!

These are not rhetorical questions but ones in dire necessity of a response if even a minuscule of what you write is to be credited.

[Immanuel Can]

But to repeat, it can't be speculation if no proven god entity ever appeared throughout the whole history of oral and written tradition.

Well, that's the point: you don't know that no "god entity" ever "appeared," and certainly not "throughout history." What you can say, and this is all, is that Dubious knows no such case.

On the other hand we do know unequivocally that every god that had a name exists only as a scriptural representation,

How do we "know" this "unequivocally"? I'm quite certain we do not.

What is known not provisionally, but absolutely based on what history attests to for every such "god encounter", there never was a deity whose appearance and background wasn't first prearranged by humans.

Again, we most certainly do NOT know this. It's most certainly a mere speculation. If it were true, you would still not have the personal means to know it was true yourself.

However, if I'm right, then one day you and I will stand before God at the Judgment...each in somewhat different circumstances, admittedly. Until that time, there's everything wrong with acting like that's not going to happen, and it's going to cost you your soul.

Why must we believe in order to be saved?

Because salvation is voluntary, not a forced performance on our part. We do have the very real choice of choosing not to have any further dealings with God, and in fact, to deny Him any role in our futures as well.

That's the nature of genuine relationship: it cannot be had except on the basis that both parties agree to it. In that sense, there is no person who is ever lost who has not chosen it and embraced it...just as you are trying your hardest to do right now. And you can't really complain if God ends up giving you exactly what you're campaigning for, can you?

When you see Him, you will not be able to say, "Nobody ever told me, or I would have taken your seriously." Rather, you'll be in the situation only to say, "When I was told, I despised you, denied your very existence, insulted your character, and said I wanted no part with you under any conditions."

Now, just what do you suppose that actually getting what you're asking for is going to look like?

[Nick_A]

God given rights. Do you really have any?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

When a right is given to us by governments, they assume and have a duty to ensure that they are never taken from us. If governments do not accept and do this enforcement duty, then citizens have a corrupted government.

If a right is given to a soul, by god, he would have a duty to ensure that they are never taken from us. The fact that they often are, indicates that he is shirking his duty.

To me, rights are like laws, completely useless and worthless unless they can be enforced by a given power when they are breached.

Do you have any real god given rights, or are god given rights just a feel-good lie that we tell ourselves we have so as to ignore that we have none?

Regards
DL

Humanity doesn't have rights. We have obligations that can lead to rights. Man becomes aware of higher values above animal values of which obligations are a part of through the Spirit. Since we never read of voluntary obligations but only the demand for rights. the state will define your rights and give you obligations. The Great Beast becomes God. Let's see how that works.

“The notion of obligations comes before that of rights, which is subordinate and relative to the former. A right is not effectual by itself, but only in relation to the obligation to which it corresponds, the effective exercise of a right springing not from the individual who possesses it, but from other men who consider themselves as being under a certain obligation towards him. Recognition of an obligation makes it effectual. An obligation which goes unrecognized by anybody loses none of the full force of its existence. A right which goes unrecognized by anybody is not worth very much.

It makes nonsense to say that men have, on the one hand, rights, and on the other hand, obligations. Such words only express differences in point of view. The actual relationship between the two is as between object and subject. A man, considered in isolation, only has duties, amongst which are certain duties towards himself. A man left alone in the universe would have no rights whatever, but he would have obligations.”

― Simone Weil, The Need for Roots: Prelude to a Declaration of Duties towards Mankind

[Dubious]

What you can say, and this is all, is that Dubious knows no such case.

Whether that's the case or not, I said most of what I wanted to say and had some fun doing it but it's beginning to wear thin.

So now I'll say happy trails and may you receive your just reward in the Pleroma realms of eternal bliss!

[RCSaunders]

That objection is not relevant here. Agnosticism is not at issue.

Atheists DO believe something, though. That is, unless you have reasons for us to believe these men simply do not qualify as Atheists.

So do you?

No one qualifies as, "atheist," in terms of what you mean by that word.

It is not an objection, however. Call people whatever you like and attribute to them whatever views you've decided they have, whether they have them or not. It makes no difference to me or them what you think.

Others know what they think and believe. Do you really think the way to deal with others is to constantly tell them they don't know their own minds? I'm sure it will be a great help to them and they'll thank you for it! Well, probably not.

[Immanuel Can]

No one qualifies as, "atheist," in terms of what you mean by that word.

I mean Dawkins. I mean Hume. Or Nietzsche, Camus, Russell, Hitchens, Hughes...and I asked whether or not YOU regard them as Atheists.

But you won't answer, precisely because they blow your theory that Atheism is purely an expression of non-belief to pieces. Very clearly, it's not that.

Do you really think the way to deal with others is to constantly tell them they don't know their own minds?

Heh.

You know darn well I didn't say that. I would say that they absolutely knew what they believed. If I take you at your word, it's you that doesn't think they did.

Really, I think you're being a little evasive, RC. and trying rather desperately to misdirect. But I'll be blunt, and drive the nail home anyway.

If Dawkins, Hume, Nietzsche et al. are taken at their word (as I take them), then they are Atheists. And they all had a great deal more to say about God than that they have no particular belief about Him. But you say that Atheism is a pure lack of belief...whereas in truth, as all these men showed, it's an affirmation that no God exists. So really, it's only you who is supposing they don't know their own minds...they knew darn well they were Atheists, and they had very firm views about whether or not God was allowed to exist -- and I'm certain you also know that.

I don't think you're going to admit it, though. It would ruin your objection.

[RCSaunders]

No one qualifies as, "atheist," in terms of what you mean by that word.

I mean Dawkins. I mean Hume. Or Nietzsche, Camus, Russell, Hitchens, Hughes...and I asked whether or not YOU regard them as Atheists.

But you won't answer, precisely because they blow your theory that Atheism is purely an expression of non-belief to pieces. Very clearly, it's not that.

What theory?

I don't think you are even aware of it, but you like to use these "either/or" false dichotomies that I, at least, am not going to acknowledge. It's very much like when I mention I don't swallow the evolutionary hypothesis and I'm told I then have to be creationist, which of course I'm not, since I reject all supernaturalism.

Just because someone does not believe in any God, does not necessarily mean they believe some other thing that you describe as a creed. They might, but they certainly do not have to. That is a false dichotomy, because there are unlimited other things one might believe that would logically exclude the existence of a deity, and it is perfectly possible to just not believe in a deity.

Not believing in a deity is also not a matter of agnosticism or ignorance. I've certainly heard of astrology and know what it is supposed to be, which is why I do not believe in it. I've certainly heard of the notion of a God and all that is supposed to be, which is why I do not believe it. It's a kind of nonsense which has no meaning. There is nothing cogent to believe--or disbelieve.

There is a current discussion on this forum about, "parallel universes," a kind of merging of science fiction, Lewis Carrol, pseudo-science, and philosophy. I certainly do not believe in other universes (which would mean other, "everythings"), but I do not have to have an alternate theory or "creed" to know that one is nonsense.

[Immanuel Can]

What theory?

Your theory that Atheism is merely the claim not to believe in any gods. It's manifestly not true, if most of the world's famous Atheists were, in your view, real "Atheists" at all.

Just because someone does not believe in any God, does not necessarily mean they believe some other thing that you describe as a creed.

Their own words mean it.

...it is perfectly possible to just not believe in a deity.

It's "perfectly possible" to choose to "believe" anything, regardless of its coherence or warrant.

But a man who just "doesn't happen to believe in X" has no opinion about X, and is agnostic (meaning "unknowing" about it). On the other hand, a man who actively chooses to disbelieve in an entity he has warrant to think could possibly exist is merely being foolish, foreclosing on a question for which he has no warrant to know anything either way, and closing his own mind totally arbitrarily, by his own admission.

An open-minded person would say, "It's possible there is a God, and possible there's not; until I have further information, I will take no position on that." But one who takes the position, "I choose to disbelieve in God" needs to have rational warrant for his disbelief, if he's a rational man. That turns his merely negative claim into a positive claim of knowledge -- into a credal claim.

Not believing in a deity is also not a matter of agnosticism or ignorance. I've certainly heard of astrology and know what it is supposed to be, which is why I do not believe in it.

But you have warrant for disbelieving in astrology. You have information concerning the planets and stars. But you say you have none regarding God; you even say you don't understand the very concept of God.

It's a kind of nonsense which has no meaning.

Then you are warranted in admitting that you simply do not understand the concept posited -- whereas, perhaps, others do. That is also not warrant for disbelief, but rather warrant for an expression of confusion or a request for further information. So disbelief is still not warranted by that argument.

[RCSaunders]

What theory?

Your theory that Atheism is merely the claim not to believe in any gods. It's manifestly not true, if most of the world's famous Atheists were, in your view, real "Atheists" at all.

Just because someone does not believe in any God, does not necessarily mean they believe some other thing that you describe as a creed.

Their own words mean it.

...it is perfectly possible to just not believe in a deity.

It's "perfectly possible" to choose to "believe" anything, regardless of its coherence or warrant.

But a man who just "doesn't happen to believe in X" has no opinion about X, and is agnostic (meaning "unknowing" about it). On the other hand, a man who actively chooses to disbelieve in an entity he has warrant to think could possibly exist is merely being foolish, foreclosing on a question for which he has no warrant to know anything either way, and closing his own mind totally arbitrarily, by his own admission.

An open-minded person would say, "It's possible there is a God, and possible there's not; until I have further information, I will take no position on that." But one who takes the position, "I choose to disbelieve in God" needs to have rational warrant for his disbelief, if he's a rational man. That turns his merely negative claim into a positive claim of knowledge -- into a credal claim.

Not believing in a deity is also not a matter of agnosticism or ignorance. I've certainly heard of astrology and know what it is supposed to be, which is why I do not believe in it.

But you have warrant for disbelieving in astrology. You have information concerning the planets and stars. But you say you have none regarding God; you even say you don't understand the very concept of God.

It's a kind of nonsense which has no meaning.

Then you are warranted in admitting that you simply do not understand the concept posited -- whereas, perhaps, others do. That is also not warrant for disbelief, but rather warrant for an expression of confusion or a request for further information. So disbelief is still not warranted by that argument.

What do you mean by, "atheist?" Do you regard anyone who does not believe in a single deity an atheist, such as animists, Shinto, and most Buddhists. What about those who believe in a God that is not the God described in the Bible, like any of the Greek, Roman, Norse, or Native American (North and South) gods?

In other words, is theism belief in just any kind of supernatural existent, or only a specifically described deity?

[uwot]

... a man who actively chooses to disbelieve in an entity he has warrant to think could possibly exist is merely being foolish...

Marduk, Ra, Zeus, Jupiter, Toutatis, Odin, Brahma, Allah, Inti, Unkulunkulu, etc and many, many et ceteras. Mr Can, which of those do you think could not possibly exist? How foolish must a person be to add God to that list?

[henry quirk]

Seems to me: if a guy doesn't think god exists, and doesn't spend a whole whack of time thinkin' about it, then he's an atheist (or mebbe an apatheist).

But: if that guy writes books & essays denouncin' god-belief, if his career in some fashion benefits from denouncin' god-belief, then -- at best -- he's as much a religionist as you or me, and -- at worst -- he's an opportunist.

[uwot]

...if that guy writes books & essays denouncin' god-belief, if his career in some fashion benefits from denouncin' god-belief, then -- at best -- he's as much a religionist as you or me, and -- at worst -- he's an opportunist.

Tricky thing this 'opportunist'. You have argued that anyone with something to sell is free to market it as they wish, and potential customers can take it or leave it, but apparently you reserve the right to judge some people for doing so. Fair enough if you do, but do you really mean that?

[henry quirk]

...if that guy writes books & essays denouncin' god-belief, if his career in some fashion benefits from denouncin' god-belief, then -- at best -- he's as much a religionist as you or me, and -- at worst -- he's an opportunist.

Tricky thing this 'opportunist'. You have argued that anyone with something to sell is free to market it as they wish, and potential customers can take it or leave it, but apparently you reserve the right to judge some people for doing so. Fair enough if you do, but do you really mean that?

Sell what you like, I say. Be honest about what you're sellin', I also say.

[uwot]

Sell what you like, I say. Be honest about what you're sellin', I also say.

Well yeah. Do you think anyone is being dishonest?