Login Register

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic Page 4 of 5   [ 81 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:21 pm 
Offline
**********
**********

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 4:46 pm
Posts: 591
kirkjunkie wrote:
Yoga wrote:
Where does one find athiests? Maybe I don't travel in the right circles, but I rarely encounter them. Some people talk as if they are common enough to constitute a problem. Who can name a living American athiest?


I teach professing atheists everyday...

FJ


Undergraduates? Graduate students? High school? Vocational? etc?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:24 pm 
Offline
**********
**********

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 4:46 pm
Posts: 591
MysticalRose wrote:
Quote:
Who can name a living American athiest?


ELLEN JOHNSON is the President of American Atheists, a nationwide movement founded by Madalyn Murray O'Hair which defends the civil rights of nonbelievers, works for the separation of church and state, and addresses issues of First Amendment public policy.

Try more than Living She is one of the people that was recently the most outspoken and involved with removing the 10 Commandments from public buildings and her predecessor was involved in such debates as taking prayer out of public schools ....


OK. That's one I can add to my list. I knew about O'Hare, but not Johnson.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:36 pm 
Offline
**********
**********

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 4:46 pm
Posts: 591
Max Majestic wrote:
Quote:
Who can name a living American athiest?


Douglas Adams, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Woody Allen, Lance Armstrong, Darren Aronofsky, Isaac Asimov, Peter William Atkins, David Attenborough, Iain M. Banks, Clive Barker, Dave Barry, Bill Bass, Ingmar Bergman, Björk, Lewis Black, Bill Blass, Jim Bohanan, Marlon Brando, Richard Branson, Berkeley Breathed, Bill Bryson, Peter Buck, Warren Buffett, George Carlin, John Carmack, Adam Carolla, John Carpenter, Asia Carrera, Fidel Castro, Dick Cavett, Noam Chomsky, Chumbawamba, Alexander Cockburn, Billy Connolly, Francis Crick, David Cronenberg, David Cross, Alan Cumming, Rodney Dangerfield, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, David Deutsch, Ani DiFranco, Micky Dolenz, Phil Donahue, Roger Ebert, Dean Edell, Greg Egan, Paul Ehrlich, Albert Einstein, Harlan Ellison, Brian Eno, Harvey Fierstein, Larry Flynt, Dave Foley, Jodie Foster, Kinky Friedman, Janeane Garofalo, Bill Gates, Bob Geldof, Ricky Gervais, Ira Glass, James Gleick, Seth Green, Harry Harrison, Robert Heinlein, Nat Hentoff, Katharine Hepburn, Christopher Hitchens, Douglas Hofstadter, Penn Jillette, Billy Joel, Angelina Jolie, Wendy Kaminer, Jonathan Katz, Diane Keaton, Margot Kidder, Neil Kinnock, Michael Kinsley, Ron Kuby, Milan Kundera, Richard Leakey, Bruce Lee, Tom Lehrer, Stanislaw Lem, Tom Leykis, James Lipton, H.P. Lovecraft, John Malkovich, Barry Manilow, Karl Marx, Todd McFarlane, Sir Ian McKellen, Arthur Miller, Frank Miller, Mike Mills, Marvin Minsky, Julianne Moore, Desmond Morris, Randy Newman, Mike Nichols, Jack Nicholson, Gary Numan, Bob Odenkirk, Patton Oswalt, Camille Paglia, Andy Partridge, Mark Pauline, Paula Poundstone, Terry Pratchett, James Randi, Ron Reagan Jr., Keanu Reeves, Rick Reynolds, Gene Roddenberry, Joe Rogan, Henry Rollins, Andy Rooney, Salman Rushdie, John Sayles, Captain Sensible, Robert Silverberg, Bob Simon, Steven Soderbergh, George Soros, Richard Stallman, Bruce Sterling, Howard Stern, J. Michael Straczynski, Julia Sweeney, Matthew Sweet, Annika Sörenstam, Teller, Studs Terkel, Tom Tomorrow, Linus Torvalds, Eddie Vedder, Paul Verhoeven, Gore Vidal, Kurt Vonnegut Jr., Sarah Vowell, Steven Weinberg, Joss Whedon, Harland Williams, Ted Williams, Steve Wozniak

[url]
http://www.celebatheists.com/wiki/index ... =Main_Page[/url]


Good list. And that's all I asked for. Now, so what? Why does it matter if Jack Nicholson is an athiest? Who cares if he's athiest or rastafarian?

(Did you know any of these before looking it up?)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:38 pm 
Offline
**********
**********

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 4:46 pm
Posts: 591
Max Majestic wrote:
Technically speaking, an atheist is simply someone who lacks a belief in God.....which is different from the positive claim "God does not exist". As such, proof isn't requisite for their position. They simply don't find the evidence of God's existance compelling enough to believe in Him.


Does an agnostic have a belief in God?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 7:48 pm 
Offline
Resident Philosopher
Resident Philosopher
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 6:28 pm
Posts: 11086
Location: Playing Guitar for Siggy's Choir...
Religion: Catholic
Church Affiliations: 2nd Deg. KoC, SSFJDOG
Pro Ecclesia Dei wrote:
Can't one prove a negative? Yes, they can...not through the cause, but rather by reduction...


I have heard a couple of people argue a proof of a universal negative in this way. The most recent was William Lane Craig who was debating an atheist. The atheist tried to say he did not have the burden of proof because you cannot prove a universal negative. Craig said you could and went on to demonstrate. The problem is that you STILL cannot prove that God does not exist.

FJ

_________________
Ut est rabidus.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:49 pm 
Offline
Suspended at request of user
Suspended at request of user
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:32 pm
Posts: 5559
Location: Maryland
Religion: RC
Yoga wrote:
Max Majestic wrote:
Technically speaking, an atheist is simply someone who lacks a belief in God.....which is different from the positive claim "God does not exist". As such, proof isn't requisite for their position. They simply don't find the evidence of God's existance compelling enough to believe in Him.


Does an agnostic have a belief in God?


Possibly...many believe that we just can not know whether there is a God. Some allow for the possibility that God exists, others are nearly sure that He does not, but can not be certain.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 12, 2005 7:32 am 
Offline
Huckleberry
Huckleberry
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 5:48 pm
Posts: 14677
Location: The Bright, Sunny South
Religion: Catholic
Yoga wrote:
Max Majestic wrote:
Technically speaking, an atheist is simply someone who lacks a belief in God.....which is different from the positive claim "God does not exist". As such, proof isn't requisite for their position. They simply don't find the evidence of God's existance compelling enough to believe in Him.


Does an agnostic have a belief in God?



agnostic - a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a God.


So, you may ask, what's the difference between an agnostic and a weak atheist?

An agnostic believes it to be unknowable. He believes it to be outside of the ability of the human mind. The weak atheist simply lacks belief. It's possible for someone to be a member of both groups, but being a member of one doesn't necessitate membership in another. (I wish there were some way to draw Venn diagrams here, but you get the gist.)

_________________
"Spread love everywhere you go."
- Bl. Mother Teresa


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 12, 2005 9:16 am 
Offline
Suspended at request of user
Suspended at request of user
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2005 10:04 am
Posts: 390
Location: Pekin IL
Quote:
As wrong as he may be, you are misrepresnting him.

WHAT?

First of all I am not representing all of his Teachings nor did I ever say that all of them were wrong ....

I merely stated and still contend that some of them and that they ARE NOT in line with Church Teachings .... This in itself should be enough considering the ones that you re talking about right now, pertain to those false and erroneous teachings.

_________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Image ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Lord Guideth me to the narrow path
that over time becomes even more narrow
that will mean that I will lose but also gain
Friends that once were will go
And I will be left alone
Only to find that my true friend
The Lord was always with me
And I had nothing to fear at all


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 12, 2005 12:14 pm 
Offline
**********
**********

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 7:27 pm
Posts: 23303
Pro Ecclesia Dei wrote:
Can't one prove a negative? Yes, they can...not through the cause, but rather by reduction...


Please explain.

_________________
--BobCatholic
I'm praying for the souls in purgatory. Come, let's empty Purgatory with Jesus' help!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 12, 2005 2:44 pm 
Offline
**********
**********

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 4:46 pm
Posts: 591
Max Majestic wrote:
Yoga wrote:
Max Majestic wrote:
Technically speaking, an atheist is simply someone who lacks a belief in God.....which is different from the positive claim "God does not exist". As such, proof isn't requisite for their position. They simply don't find the evidence of God's existance compelling enough to believe in Him.


Does an agnostic have a belief in God?



agnostic - a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a God.


So, you may ask, what's the difference between an agnostic and a weak atheist?

An agnostic believes it to be unknowable. He believes it to be outside of the ability of the human mind. The weak atheist simply lacks belief. It's possible for someone to be a member of both groups, but being a member of one doesn't necessitate membership in another. (I wish there were some way to draw Venn diagrams here, but you get the gist.)


The categories of weak athiest, strong athiest, and agnostic are reasonable. But, I think the common labels of athiest and agnoistic will fail to properly communicate meanings.

The weak athiest category would include the bulk of Chinese and Japanese, and millions of Buddhists. I think calling these folks athiests will be a bit confusing, so they should always be called weak athiests. That would then prompt the question of what a weak athiest is.

And the agnostic is even more interesting. Does an agnostic hold the unknowable view AND lack a commitment? If so, this makes all agnostics weak athiests.

If an agnostic holds only the lack of commitment, then he is also a weak athiest.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 12, 2005 2:50 pm 
Offline
Huckleberry
Huckleberry
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 5:48 pm
Posts: 14677
Location: The Bright, Sunny South
Religion: Catholic
Yoga wrote:

And the agnostic is even more interesting. Does an agnostic hold the unknowable view AND lack a commitment? If so, this makes all agnostics weak athiests.

If an agnostic holds only the lack of commitment, then he is also a weak athiest.


Look at it this way. An agnostic is making a claim about the limits of epistemology. He feels any knowledge lies outside of our grasp. The weak atheist doesn't make the same claim....he holds that perhaps it IS within our realm of possibility to have knowledge of the existance of God, he simply lacks such a belief.

If you were to ask an agnostic if he lacks a belief in God, he might scratch his head in puzzlement. The question would seem absurd to him.....as might the very concept of God. It'd be the same as asking me whether or not I lack a belief in the planet Zebulon 5 in the outer reaches of Toejam Nebula.

_________________
"Spread love everywhere you go."
- Bl. Mother Teresa


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 12, 2005 2:52 pm 
Offline
**********
**********

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 4:46 pm
Posts: 591
Max Majestic wrote:
Yoga wrote:

And the agnostic is even more interesting. Does an agnostic hold the unknowable view AND lack a commitment? If so, this makes all agnostics weak athiests.

If an agnostic holds only the lack of commitment, then he is also a weak athiest.


Look at it this way. An agnostic is making a claim about the limits of epistemology. He feels any knowledge lies outside of our grasp. The weak atheist doesn't make the same claim....he holds that perhaps it IS within our realm of possibility to have knowledge of the existance of God, he simply lacks such a belief.

If you were to ask an agnostic if he lacks a belief in God, he might scratch his head in puzzlement. The question would seem absurd to him.....as might the very concept of God. It'd be the same as asking me whether or not I lack a belief in the planet Zebulon 5 in the outer reaches of Toejam Nebula.


This leaves the door open for an agnostic to believe in God.

I see four categories.

Knowable/no God
Knowable/God
Unknowable/No God
Unknowable/God


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 12, 2005 2:57 pm 
Offline
Huckleberry
Huckleberry
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 5:48 pm
Posts: 14677
Location: The Bright, Sunny South
Religion: Catholic
Yoga wrote:

This leaves the door open for an agnostic to believe in God.

I see four categories.

Knowable/no God
Knowable/God
Unknowable/No God
Unknowable/God



Yes. That is correct.

It sounds counterintuitive for someone to say "I am an agnostic Christian", but that is certainly a possibility.

edit: Except I would have a fifth category of "Unknowable/No conception"

_________________
"Spread love everywhere you go."
- Bl. Mother Teresa


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 12, 2005 2:59 pm 
Offline
Suspended at request of user
Suspended at request of user
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:32 pm
Posts: 5559
Location: Maryland
Religion: RC
Max Majestic wrote:
Yoga wrote:

This leaves the door open for an agnostic to believe in God.

I see four categories.

Knowable/no God
Knowable/God
Unknowable/No God
Unknowable/God



Yes. That is correct.

It sounds counterintuitive for someone to say "I am an agnostic Christian", but that is certainly a possibility.


Yes, one could fall into this category and adopt a Pascal's wager view of life. Along with that view, one could determine that living the Christian lifestyle as faithfully as possible is most reasonable.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 12, 2005 3:06 pm 
Offline
**********
**********

Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 4:46 pm
Posts: 591
Max Majestic wrote:
Yoga wrote:

This leaves the door open for an agnostic to believe in God.

I see four categories.

Knowable/no God
Knowable/God
Unknowable/No God
Unknowable/God



Yes. That is correct.

It sounds counterintuitive for someone to say "I am an agnostic Christian", but that is certainly a possibility.

edit: Except I would have a fifth category of "Unknowable/No conception"


And possibly a sixth category:
Huh?/Huh?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 12, 2005 3:08 pm 
Offline
Huckleberry
Huckleberry
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2004 5:48 pm
Posts: 14677
Location: The Bright, Sunny South
Religion: Catholic
Yoga wrote:
Max Majestic wrote:
Yoga wrote:

This leaves the door open for an agnostic to believe in God.

I see four categories.

Knowable/no God
Knowable/God
Unknowable/No God
Unknowable/God



Yes. That is correct.

It sounds counterintuitive for someone to say "I am an agnostic Christian", but that is certainly a possibility.

edit: Except I would have a fifth category of "Unknowable/No conception"


And possibly a sixth category:
Huh?/Huh?



I believe we have it correct now. We should publish our findings. :D

_________________
"Spread love everywhere you go."
- Bl. Mother Teresa


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 12, 2005 4:00 pm 
Offline
**********
**********

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 7:27 pm
Posts: 23303
Max Majestic wrote:
Yoga wrote:

This leaves the door open for an agnostic to believe in God.

I see four categories.

Knowable/no God
Knowable/God
Unknowable/No God
Unknowable/God



Yes. That is correct.

It sounds counterintuitive for someone to say "I am an agnostic Christian", but that is certainly a possibility.

edit: Except I would have a fifth category of "Unknowable/No conception"


Wouldn't that be fifth and sixth as:

No conception/no God
No Conception/God

?

_________________
--BobCatholic
I'm praying for the souls in purgatory. Come, let's empty Purgatory with Jesus' help!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 12, 2005 6:13 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 9:34 pm
Posts: 29123
Location: Sine Domum
Religion: Roman Catholic
BobCatholic wrote:
Pro Ecclesia Dei wrote:
Can't one prove a negative? Yes, they can...not through the cause, but rather by reduction...


Please explain.


Reductios....for one

Then there is Bocardo, Celarent, Baroco...Celarent being first figure this should be obvious!

A is said of no B
B is said of all C
---------------------
A is said of no C

_________________
Quoniam sapientia aperuit os mutorum, et linguas infantium fecit disertas.

http://stomachosus-thomistarum.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 12, 2005 6:20 pm 
Offline
**********
**********

Joined: Tue Dec 31, 2002 7:27 pm
Posts: 23303
Pro Ecclesia Dei wrote:
BobCatholic wrote:
Pro Ecclesia Dei wrote:
Can't one prove a negative? Yes, they can...not through the cause, but rather by reduction...


Please explain.


Reductios....for one

Then there is Bocardo, Celarent, Baroco...Celarent being first figure this should be obvious!

A is said of no B
B is said of all C
---------------------
A is said of no C


Forgive me, I haven't been in a philosophy class in 10 years so these advanced terms confuse me.

Please explain the reductio method for this example.

_________________
--BobCatholic
I'm praying for the souls in purgatory. Come, let's empty Purgatory with Jesus' help!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 12, 2005 6:30 pm 
Offline
Sons of Thunder
Sons of Thunder
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 9:34 pm
Posts: 29123
Location: Sine Domum
Religion: Roman Catholic
BobCatholic wrote:
Pro Ecclesia Dei wrote:
BobCatholic wrote:
Pro Ecclesia Dei wrote:
Can't one prove a negative? Yes, they can...not through the cause, but rather by reduction...


Please explain.


Reductios....for one

Then there is Bocardo, Celarent, Baroco...Celarent being first figure this should be obvious!

A is said of no B
B is said of all C
---------------------
A is said of no C


Forgive me, I haven't been in a philosophy class in 10 years so these advanced terms confuse me.

Please explain the reductio method for this example.

ok..but do you at least understand the Celarent syllogism I gave?

By reductio I mean a reduction to the impossible. You say "I say this is so....but let's say it is not so...and then you proceed to show that the not so is impossible"

Prop 7 of book I of the Elements does this to prove a negative

http://aleph0.clarku.edu/~djoyce/java/e ... ropI7.html

_________________
Quoniam sapientia aperuit os mutorum, et linguas infantium fecit disertas.

http://stomachosus-thomistarum.blogspot.com/


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic Page 4 of 5   [ 81 posts ]   Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


Jump to: