The lack of logic that encompasses this joint

[_Equality]

But its clear to me you are wrong in labeling him an atheist and wrong that his point is as you describe.

Once again, that would depend on how "atheist" is defined. If by atheist you mean "one who denies that there is or could be a god," then yes, it would be wrong to call Shermer an atheist. If by atheist you mean "one who disbelieves in any god based on the lack of evidence" then Shermer is most definitely an atheist. That's the usage most of us who call ourselves atheists subscribe to, a point that has been made over and over and which you still seem constitutionally incapable of grasping. This really isn't that difficult. You are being obstinate.

[_stemelbow]

Stem,

Can you please answer a few questions for me?

1. What is your position on the existence of Zeus?

I generally go with the idea that his existence is a myth, but I don't necessarily wholly discount it.

2. Do you believe that it's possible to disprove the existence of Zeus?

I'm pretty sure you'll be missing the point if you continue down this road. Is this board dedicated to discussing his existence? Are there participators here who hold that the existence of Zeus is essential to every human?

3. What would you say to people that believe in Zeus that say it's YOUR duty to first disprove the existence of Zeus before they'll stop believing in Zeus?

That gets to the point of it a little. I don't care if people want to believe in Zeus or not. Why would I actively head to a board complaining about people who do beleive in him? Seems silly to me.

4. If you feel that you can't disprove Zeus, do you find this a sufficient justification to believe in Zeus?

hah. You do miss my point.

5. Can you generalize these answers to, say, other "supernatural" creatures: fairies, goblins, Thor, Allah, Middle Earth, the Mayan Gods, etc. ?

Sure I can if I want.

If you can answer these question, I think that you might come to understand my position on the Hebrew tribal god: Yahweh.

I get an agnostic position just fine. Also my main point was not so much atheism vs agnosticism. Its more along the lines of the arguments here and positions here aren’t very helpful, constructive, thoughtful, useful you know stuff like that.

[_Chap]

... If by atheist you mean "one who disbelieves in any god based on the lack of evidence" .... That's the usage most of us who call ourselves atheists subscribe to, a point that has been made over and over and which you still seem constitutionally incapable of grasping. This really isn't that difficult. You are being obstinate.

I am afraid you are right.

Look, stemelbow. The nice atheists are talking to you. They are explaining how they think. Maybe they know what they are talking about?

If the atheists don't know about atheism, why should we assume that the Mormons are worth listening to on Mormonism?

[_stemelbow]

Once again, that would depend on how "atheist" is defined. If by atheist you mean "one who denies that there is or could be a god," then yes, it would be wrong to call Shermer an atheist. If by atheist you mean "one who disbelieves in any god based on the lack of evidence" then Shermer is most definitely an atheist. That's the usage most of us who call ourselves atheists subscribe to, a point that has been made over and over and which you still seem constitutionally incapable of grasping. This really isn't that difficult. You are being obstinate.

Oh settle down about how I'm being. Let's discuss. This is Shermer's position. he is the one who says atheism is used to mean there is no God. that is why he does not call himself an atheist. In this he clearly implies those who call themselves atheists do so with the presumption that the terms means as used--there is no God. He calls the question of whether there is a God insoluble. He can't be broached with the tools we have. It is untenable to claim there is no God. It is untenable to claim there is a God. Thus, his clear message of what position he holds.

[_Equality]

Once again, that would depend on how "atheist" is defined. If by atheist you mean "one who denies that there is or could be a god," then yes, it would be wrong to call Shermer an atheist. If by atheist you mean "one who disbelieves in any god based on the lack of evidence" then Shermer is most definitely an atheist. That's the usage most of us who call ourselves atheists subscribe to, a point that has been made over and over and which you still seem constitutionally incapable of grasping. This really isn't that difficult. You are being obstinate.

Oh settle down about how I'm being. Let's discuss. This is Shermer's position. he is the one who says atheism is used to mean there is no God. that is why he does not call himself an atheist. In this he clearly implies those who call themselves atheists do so with the presumption that the terms means as used--there is no God. He calls the question of whether there is a God insoluble. He can't be broached with the tools we have. It is untenable to claim there is no God. It is untenable to claim there is a God. Thus, his clear message of what position he holds.

I'll type slowly in the hope that you will better understand. Here is what Shermer said about the definition: "Atheism is typically used to mean "disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God." See there? As has been pointed out by other posters here (and ignored by you repeatedly), there are two different concepts in this definition: (1) "disbelief in" and (2) "denial of." It's the second definition that Shermer (and others here such as I) have a problem with. But you are reading the word "atheist" to have only the second definition and not the first. It's people like you that Shermer has a problem with--for creating the usage of the word that allows only for "denial of" definition and not the "disbelief in" part. What he's saying is that most people, like him, who do not believe in God or gods, actually subscribe to the first definition ("disbelief in"). But people like you use the word atheist as a club to try to characterize their belief as the second definition. Which is why he doesn't like the word atheist. Got it now?

[_Fionn]

Stem,

You need to go to page 4 and address the post from Hasa Diga Ebowi [sic?]. He is challenging your interpretation of Shermer and there are many points there you really should address.

[_stemelbow]

The OP is terribly flawed for this reason...

Everyone is an atheist in regards to every God except their own.

That doesn’t even address the OP, so I don’t see how this reason exposes how the OP is flawed. Indeed, this seems like a very weird phrase. Atheism means there is no God. You imply that atheists include people who believe in God. That doesn’t even make any sense, if you ask me.

Does anyone bother making arguments as to why it is impossible for Zeus to exist? No, that would be stupid. MOST atheists don't engage in any kind of debate on the matter because it is just as stupid to argue against the existence of Zeus as it is to argue against the existence of the God of Abraham.

You say stupid, Shermer and myself say untenable. I suppose we aren’t as angry about it, perhaps.

Is it possible that some God in some form exists? Maybe, but the possibility is so remote or the idea of this imaginary God is so foreign that is serves no one any purpose of arguing for His/Her/Its existence.

Indeed. That is an agnostic, or skeptic position. That is how Shermer describes his position.

We don't believe in the God of Abraham because the Bible is fiction. the Israelites were never enslaved as an entire race in Egypt, there was never a global flood, and most that follows is irrelevant... including the New Testament and the Book of Mormon.

So. That’s really not much of a point in regards to the point of this thread. Sure people don’t believe some religious propositions. Cool. It’d be nice if we could all maintain that stand. The point here is can you prove the position of atheism? That there is no God? It’s a difficult thing to undertake proving a negative. But some maintain its possible.

If the Old Testament isn't true, then neither is the New Testament, then neither is the Book of Mormon. That is, generally, the premise "atheists" on this and similar forums are working on.

Could be. But that doesn’t matter, really. Also, the propositions here lack definition. What does it mean to say the New Testament isn’t true? That nothing in it can be verified? That nothing in it resonates as teaching with you? Or what exactly? I can’t tell if you’re trying to suggest the scriptures aren’t true in your estimation or if you think the scriptures have been proven untrue, whatever that would mean.

We don't have to prove that there is no such thing as God. We only have to show that the reasonable position is that YOUR God is a cultural construct. Easy enough, too.

Proving that isn’t really doing much of anything in light of the context here though. The position here, generally, is that the Church is not true. I’m not here trying to prove the Church true. I accept that its just as untenable to say the Church is true as to say the Church is not true. Defending really is just holding the position that the critiques aren’t very valid or don’t hold much water. The critical position is holding the position that the Church is not true. If this is not so, then what’s the point of this “discussion” board? For LDS to come here and prove that their spiritual experiences really occurred? I don’t see LDS claiming they can prove that at all.

The only fall back position, when all arguments are said and done, for anyone who believes in the God of Abraham is that they "feel" that they know it is true. They don't actually know.

How do you even know what they know? That just seems like a silly claim. This highlights the point in the OP. Generally what happens here is some critic takes the position that belief is wrong because the believer’s position is unverified. That doesn’t mean the believer is wrong so much as that the believer’s position is still in question, or untenable. The problem that persists though, is the critics position too is untenable. You don’t know what others know, but yet you claim you know they don’t know because they can’t show you how or why they know. It amounts to silliness and is not logical.

Obviously, the argument that "you can't prove it" works both ways since no one can be 100% certain of anything, but scientific method and empiricism have provided us with the tools and processes to generate what is most probable... the result being a blurry version of reality that transcends culture and anecdotal experience and has real world applications that can be and are used every day, reliably, to accomplish tasks in every facet of modern civilization.

That’s fine, but going that route comes off more as an agnostic position and, if you notice the tiny little nuanced phrasing you used its faith to believe the tools you do have are the tools most reliable and generates what is most probable.

Sorry, the OP fails. Claiming there is no God is a more reasonable and logical explanation than something primitive people made up thousands of years ago, then reinvented because the other gods of the era proved to be more powerful.

Clearly you misunderstood the point of the OP. You didn’t really address why it fails at all.

[_stemelbow]

I've found most atheists to also be agnostic, because belief in certain knowledge outside of rational, material means like the scientific method (viz., gnosticism) seems to go hand in hand with religion, though not always. Believers in gods also tend to believe that they have special knowledge or experience of their existence, and nonbelievers in gods also tend not to believe that they have any special knowledge or experience with their nonexistence, though there are exceptions on both sides.

That's fine. Then its a semantics thing. Either you call yourself an atheist but still accept its possible there is a God but you just don't think so because the evidence isn't there to prove it, or in order to an atheist you propose the idea that there is no God (no qualifications at all). Either way, the main point I was going for stands.

[_brade]

I've found most atheists to also be agnostic, because belief in certain knowledge outside of rational, material means like the scientific method (viz., gnosticism) seems to go hand in hand with religion, though not always. Believers in gods also tend to believe that they have special knowledge or experience of their existence, and nonbelievers in gods also tend not to believe that they have any special knowledge or experience with their nonexistence, though there are exceptions on both sides.

That's fine. Then its a semantics thing. Either you call yourself an atheist but still accept its possible there is a God but you just don't think so because the evidence isn't there to prove it, or in order to an atheist you propose the idea that there is no God (no qualifications at all). Either way, the main point I was going for stands.

Ok, I'm an atheist but still accept it's possible there is a god. Your OP is irrelevant then, right?

[_Droopy]

With all the clever quibbling that's gone on in this post over the definition of "atheist" (and Equality has done a yeoman's job of introducing several subtle linguistic distinctions with very little difference into the discussion in an attempt to create - subtle linguistic distinctions with very little difference), the upshot of the matter, at the end of the day, is this: Much of the atheist argument is dependent upon just what counts as evidence for or against the existence of God, and upon what criteria that is to be decided.

When an atheist says, "I don't believe in God because I do not see sufficient evidence to believe in God." what is really being claimed here is that, from within the intellectual template, constraints, expectations, perceptual range, and accepted methodological rules of the intellectually conditioning sphere of the philosophical naturalism that is the perceptual filter through which the atheist perceives the universe, what counts as "evidence" for the existence of God may be very different from what counts as evidence to someone working outside the naturalistic/materialist/positivst "box."

Atheists assume that what they take to be "evidence" for or against the existence of God is somehow uniquely privileged above other forms of perception, thought, and methodology, and that what counts as evidence in a biology lab or an astronomer's observatory in the search for some truth relating to the physical universe, is simply transferable wholesale into other realms in which other kinds of phenomena are in question.

The Latter day Saint or general Christian can quite easily and succinctly point out the the very same phenomena atheists take as evidence against the existence of God, can equally be taken as confirmatory evidence of his existence. The atheist's problem is in his insistence that the intellectual tools, methodology, and perceptual level at which human science functions is adequate to the acquisition of all forms or kinds of knowledge whatever (which assumes again, of course, that all possible knowledge is of the kind amenable to discovery through the scientific method, and that the scientific method represents the key to understanding all that counts as evidence for the truth of everything that counts as reality) and deeply so, for the kinds of knowledge necessary to an acceptance and understanding of God.

What we actually perceive is deeply conditioned by the level of reality at which we perceive. That is to say, if we wish to find out if there is a God - to perceive him - then we must perceive at the level or reality at which perception of him becomes possible.

Our perceptions are conditioned and mediated by our perceptual expectations as well as by the perceptual level at which perception takes place. Locked into a single, narrow perceptual frame of reference, the metaphysical materialist demands the kinds of evidence relevant to the perceptual level at which he attempts to comprehend spiritual claims. When this methodology fails, he claims that "there is no evidence" of God, or other metaphysical realities.

Hence, as Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1: 18,

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

1 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;