Right. I reject the Abrahamic god in spite of being ben Avraham but I am not an atheist.
My god derives from string theories Calabi-Yau Compact Manifolds. Richard On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 11:50 AM, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Jul 10, 2013, at 7:24 AM, chris peck <[email protected]> wrote: > > To Jason: > > >>Atheism, in its naivety, rejects all these possibilities without even > realizing it has done so. > > How can you possibly speak for atheists generally in this regard? > > > My point is that if one takes atheism to be the rejection of all > conceptions of god, then because those ideas are conceptions of god from > various religions, then someone who remains atheist after exposure to those > ideas (rather than agnostic) has rejected them, and worse, has done so > without any justification. This is anti-scientific because there is some > evidence for these propositions. Even if that evidence does not convince > you, there is no reason to reject them until evidence comes out against the > theories on which they are based. > > > Particularly after the arguments you have been making! What do you know of > all the possibilities they have entertained or whether and how they have > rejected them? > > > If atheism means belief in no gods, then anyone can extraopolate the > implications of such a broad rejection. > > Note that Brent uses a different meaning. He says some atheists mean only > the rejection of the Abrahamic god. This is not the standard definition > one finds in dictionaries, however. > > > > > >>The word atheist is either meaningless (if it applies to specific or > certain God/gods), or it is inconsistent/unsupported if you apply it to > more general definitions of god. It's a word that seems to carry less than > 1 bit of information. > > How does the word become meaningless if it is applied to a specific God? > > > Meaningless is an exaggeration, it carries some but very little > information. As you note below all it may means is they have some notion > of god that they reject. If atheism means disbelief in only one particular > god, then there is very little meaning conveyed in the word, as it does not > specify which god is rejected and further it would be true for essentially > everyone. It is like stating "I am a being that can express thoughts" or > "I have beliefs". It has meaning, sure, but not much. > > Now the converse, where atheism is taken to mean rejection of all gods, > rather than one, is not meaningless. However it seems unfounded > scientifically, and more likely than not it is wrong, because it takes only > one consistent and extant conception of god to invalidate it. To assert it > this form of atheism carries the arrogance of pretending to know the final > answers to all the fundamental questions, to have surveyed all of reality > (not just this universe). > > So you are right I think the term is very problematic, and something like > free thought avoids most of those problems. Agnostic also avoids the > problems. > > Up until now you have been arguing that it is the vast variety of meanings > the word God can convey that has been the problem, > > > It is a problem for the "no gods" atheism. > > now it is a problem when the meaning is narrowed down? > > > Then it is logically consistent, but says very little without a follow up > enumeration if the god(s) one is rejecting. > > I beginning to think for you 'atheist' is just a useless word because that > is how you want things to be. > > > It's things are. My wants did not make things this way, but I do want to > point out the many issues of this term. > > > > I also don't get how the word 'atheist' is inconsistent if the definition > of God is broader. > > > Because then it leads to more general definitions of god like that which > is responsible for the existance of the reality you see, or infinite truth, > etc. You could reject these notions, but such an ontological commitment is > premature and not backed up by experiments, logic or rationality. > > The word atheist depends on two things to be correctly applied. Firstly, > that I have something in mind when I use the word God, and that I don't > believe it exists. I would be inconsistent if I said i didn't believe in > this thing, when actually I did. > > > I agree such a formulation of atheism could be true and consitent. My > only complaint with that formulation is that it is underspecified. > > Note the same underspecification results from saying "I believe in God". > Well which one do you believe in? If it is that which is responsible for > the existence of reality, then pretty much everyone believes in God, and > you haven't communicated very much information. > > > > >>n that case everyone is an atheist, as you could cook up any definition > of some God that person will not believe in. > > Its a point many atheists make. Jews don't believe Christ was the son of > God. Christians don't believe in endless cycles of reincarnation. Relative > to both, atheists just lack one further belief. they are all atheists > relative to one another. > > > Those who say they reject one more conception of God than those who are > monotheist imply that they believe in zero Gods. > > John Clark told me he believes in one god less than I do, but when I asked > him what that one god was that he rejected he refused. I think because he > realized that it is something he does believe in. > > (I had previously said to him mathematical truth has many properties of > god, transcendant, infinite, eternal, uncreated, immutable, outside time, > responsible for existance of you and the reality you experience. John had > also said he was a Platonist.) > > > > But you're not really getting me. The point was that the word 'atheist' > conveys some information regardless of how God is defined and therefore > clearly has utility. > > > It conveys some, I agree. > > That if I call someone an atheist you know something about him even before > you know his definition of God. ie. that he has one, and that he doesn't > believe in it. In other words 'atheist' has use and meaning before we even > begin to get into your muddle about the meaning of 'God'. > > > Right. > > > > >> Free thought is also more in line with the a genuine scientific > attitude, whereas many sects of atheism are prone to authority and dogmas. > > Well I would disagree with you there. That sounds like scientism to me. > > > What is wrong with applying the scientific attitude as the took to develop > beliefs about the world? Do you have a better way? > > Also, I don't like the blind assumption that thoughts come freely rather > than that they are determined. > > > I don't think free in "free thought" has the same meaning as free in "free > will". I took it to mean unconstrained from the outside influences of > institutions, traditions, dogmas, etc. > > > > Moreover, I don't think there is a single kind of attitude that is > 'genuinely scientific'. > > > Bruno says the attitude is encompassd by curiousity, humbleness, and > clarity. > > I suspect Galileo and Einstein were probably extremely pig headed and > dogmatic, whereas Feynman and Darwin liked to play with ideas. All of them > made progress in science. I get anxious when I hear people define what > scientists should be like. > > > Maybe we can agree on what does not make for good science: incuriosity, > arrogance, obfuscation. > > Jason > > Whatever gets the job done, I say. But thats another argument. > > ------------------------------ > From: <[email protected]>[email protected] > To: <[email protected]>[email protected] > Subject: Re: Hitch > Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2013 11:59:16 +0200 > > > On 09 Jul 2013, at 22:58, John Mikes wrote: > > (See below): I do not fall for Brent's quip that you want to impose your > extended (non-religious?) religion on us, so I continue. > > Whatever you call 'religious' is continuation of millenia-long habits, > hard to break. The Hindus have different ones - yet it IS religion. > Atheists? Atheism? comes within the package. I am agnostic, BUT not in the > God-related sense - agnostic of anything all we can state as 'knowable'. > Including proof, evidence, and - yes - > appearance, (of course "testability" included) what you use FOR the > mind-body fantasy. It appears to our human 'mind' (in our latest human > logic). What I am agnostic about. > > > > But logic and proofs are for communicating theories, that is beliefs. Not > knowledge. Logic is the most agnostic things we can met. > > > > > * > Now about my 'Steckenpferd': *natural numbers*. I asked you so many times > to no avail. > > > ? > > > > > You hide behind "it is *SSOOO* simple that you cannot explain it by even > simpler cuts" or something similar. > > > I explained why it has to be like that. But we can agree on some axioms > that I have given. > > > > > > In my 'narrative' I figured that pre-caveman looking at his HANDS, FEET, > EYES, and found that PAIR makes sense. (2, not 1). Then (s)he detected that > PAIR consists of - well, - a PAIR, meaning 2 similars of ONE. And (s)he > counted: ONE, ONE, PAIR (=TWO.) > > > Quite possible. > > > The rest may not exceed the mental capabilities of conventional > anthropologists. Here we go into the NATURAL numbers. Some other animals > got similarly into 3, 5, maybe the elephant into even more. > > > Some birds can count up to 36. They begin to make aggressive sonf when > they heard 36 songs of their species in the neighborhood. I read this a > long time ago, ---I have not verified this. > > > > > Then came the originators of the subsequent Roman (what I know of) > numbering - looking at a HAND counting *fingers*. The group on a palm > looks like a V, so it represented 5. With 2 drawn together at their pointed > end for 10 (No decimal idea at this point). Four was too much, to count, so > they took 1 off from the V:* IV, *(repeated later as IX etc.) and when it > came to 4 X-s they got bored and drew only 2 lines recangulary together for > 50, -- 40 similarly marked as XL (49 as IL). > > Remember: subtracting was different in ancient Rome, you also included the > start-up figure and subtracted it like 9-3 = (9,8,7) = 7 as the original > old Julian calendar counted the dates, e.g. today: July 9: "ante diem > septimum (7) Idus Julii" (the 7th day before the Idus of July) because July > is a MILMO month when the Idus is not on the 13th as usual, but on the > 15th). And NO ZERO, please. > So I doubt that the 'natural numbers' created the world. > > > That expression is misleading. All theories assumes the natural nulmbers, > and what I show, is that if we are machine, it is undecidable if there is > anything more. If we are machine, arithmetic (number + their addition and > multiplication laws) is enough to explain the origin of a web of dreams and > how the physical realities becomes apparent for the relative number points > of view. And my point is not that this is true, but that this is > empirically refutable. > > > > > Humans created the natural numbers. Just like they created the > not-so-naturals (irrationals, infinites, you name them). > > > Is that not anthropocentrism? And where the humans come from? > > Bruno > > > > > John M > > > > > On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 5:25 AM, Bruno Marchal < <[email protected]> > [email protected]> wrote: > > John, > > > On 08 Jul 2013, at 23:03, John Mikes wrote: > > After some million years of 'mental' development this animal arrived at > the 'mental' fear. Usurpers exploited it by creating superpowers to target > it with assigned intent to help, or destroy. The details were subject to > the 'founders' benefit of enslaving the rest of the people into their rule. > Such unquestionable tyranny lasted over the past millennia and it takes a > long, hard, dangerous work to get out of it. The USA Constitution (18th c.) > stepped ahead in SOME little political and economical ways, yet only a tiny > little in liberating the people from the religious slavery: a so called > 'separation' of state and church (not clearly identified to this day). > > > The problem is that once we separate religion from state, people still > continue to be "religious" (authoritative) on something else. But it was a > progress. Now we know that we have to separate also health from the state. > > > > Th French revolution similarly targetted the religion, yet today - after > numerous vocal enlightened minds - the country is still divided between > Christian and Islamic fundamentalist trends. > > > Yes (even more clearly when including atheists in the christians). > > > In my view an 'atheist requires a god to disbelieve (deny?). > > > Indeed. Many atheists seems to take more seriously the Christian Gods than > most christians theologians, who can seriously debate on the > Aristotle/Plato difference. > > > > Matter is figmentous and the 'origins' are beyond our reach. > > > It is certainly beyond any form of certainty, but simple theories > (conjecture, ides, hypotheses) might exist. In particular the idea that we > are machine can explain the origin of mind and matter appearances, in a > testable way, except for the origin of the natural numbers which have to > remain a complete mystery beyond reach of all machines. > > > > > Physical is a level of human development and there is infinite unknown - > unknowable - we don't even guess. > > > OK. > > > Just musing > > > Thanks for that, > > Bruno > > > > > John M > > On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Bruno Marchal < <[email protected]> > [email protected]> wrote: > > > On 08 Jul 2013, at 19:53, meekerdb wrote: > > On 7/8/2013 1:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 08 Jul 2013, at 02:45, meekerdb wrote: > > On 7/7/2013 6:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 07 Jul 2013, at 07:28, meekerdb wrote: > > > > > <http://www.salon.com/2013/07/06/god_is_not_great_christopher_hitchens_is_not_a_liar/> > http://www.salon.com/2013/07/**06/god_is_not_great_** > christopher_hitchens_is_not_a_**liar/ > > > > I love Christopher Hitchens. I agree with many points. He is more an > anticlerical than an atheist to me ... > > > Everybody called him an atheist. He called himself an atheist. I think > you just don't like the term. > > > "atheism" is different in America and in Europa, although I have realized > now that some atheists in America might be similar, but not Hitchens. Many > people confuse agnosticism and atheism. Some atheists maintains the > confusion to hide that they are believers (in "matter" and in the non > existence of God). > > > I don't know any atheists who are shy about their belief that matter > exists and God doesn't. > > > That is the problem. > > > > > > Many people, and dictionaries, confuse agnosticism="that whether or not > God exists is unknown" > > > That's the usual mundane sense of the word. > > > > > with agnosticism="that whether or not God exists is impossible to know". > > > That's a technical view by some philosophers. > > > > > I agree with Sam Harris that "atheist" is not a very useful appellation > because it only describes someone in contrast to "theist". It just means > they fail to believe in a God who is a person and whose approval one should > seek. > > > Pebbles and chimpanzees fails too, but are not atheists in any reasonable > sense. Most vindicative atheists really believe that god does not exist, > and then they believe in a primitively material universe, even a Boolean > one (without being aware of this in particular). > > Also, many religions and theologies have other notion of Gods. > > > > > As Harris points out we don't invent words like awarmist to describe one > who fails to believe there is global warming or anummerist to describe > someone who's not sure about the existence of numbers. > > > Yes. I heard a catholic bishop, taking about a book written by a Belgian > atheist, saying that the atheists are "our allies", "they keep advertising > for us and (our) God" Then, at least around here, "Matter" is such a dogma > that you can get problem when you dare to doubt it, "apparently" --- > because they don't practice dialog, and ignore the embarrassing questions. > > They don't practice science in the matter. For them you are just mad if > you doubt ... basically the same theology of matter than the christians. > Greek theology is allowed to be studied by historians, not by > mathematicians. The atheists I know fight more the agnostic (in the mundane > sense) than the radicals of any religion. Political correctness makes easy > to defend 2+2=5, and impossible to defend 2+2=4. > > We are all believers, and when a machine pretend to be a non believer, it > means "I know", and she will impose her religion to you, by all means. > > Bruno > > > > <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/>http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/ > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to > everything-list+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.com<everything-list%[email protected]> > . > To post to this group, send email to > everything-list@googlegroups.**com<[email protected]> > . > Visit this group at <http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list> > http://groups.google.com/**group/everything-list. > For more options, visit <https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out> > https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_out. > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to <[email protected]> > [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to <[email protected]> > [email protected]. > Visit this group at <http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list> > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit <https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out> > https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > > <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/>http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to <everything-list%[email protected]> > [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to <[email protected]> > [email protected]. > Visit this group at <http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list> > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit <https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out> > https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to <[email protected]> > [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to <[email protected]> > [email protected]. > Visit this group at <http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list> > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit <https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out> > https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > > <http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/>http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at <http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list> > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit <https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out> > https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at <http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list> > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit <https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out> > https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > om. > Visit this group at <http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list> > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit <https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out> > https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
