Winnipeg police chief touts prayer to help combat crime

[Sleipnir]

That's incorrect though. There's a distinction to be made between belief and knowledge.

The definition of atheism, agnosticism, theism are all based on the concept of 'belief' not knowledge as far as I know (wikipedia, oxford, thefreedictionary, marriam-webster, cambridge advanced learner's dictionary, wordreference, etc).

Edited November 12, 2012 by Sleipnir

[betsy]

Oh Betsy... Other members urged me not to waste my time, but I patiently responded to all of your chicken and egg posts. I read the study you were quoting, but didn't read yourself, I explained several times, in several different ways that it does not address or prove what you think it does. In the end you claimed that you were going ignore me; which was/is fine with me.

However, after claiming to ignore me, this weekend you directed a few very long posts in my direction. I'm not stumped by or avoiding your arguments, I simply did not read them or respond to them. Like many others I've now learned that you are not a reasonable or honest debater so it would be foolish for me to continue conversing with you.

No wonder you keep repeating your arguments/defense - you admit you've not read! Just like your source who also admitted he didn't read!

Eh?

How do you know whether I'm honest or not when you don't have the facts? If you didn't read, you don't know!

[betsy]

Cybercoma

Some atheists believe with absolute certainty that God doesn't exist, other atheists don't know whether or not God exists and as a result don't believe in God. You're saying that the latter are agnostics and you're right, but I still say they're still atheists because they don't believe in God. Atheism means they don't believe in God. It doesn't not necessarily mean they believe that God doesn't exist. That's just sloppy logic and lazy thinking that has led people to use those ideas interchangeably.

They are still agnostics because they still believe they don't know whether God exists or not. They chose not to believe in God because they doubt His existence.

It would've been different if they chose not to believe in God because they've come to realize....or they'd decided to believe that He does not exist.

Atheism is the absolute belief that God does not exist. It is a clear conclusion in their mind that God - definitely and absolutely - does not exists.

Edited November 12, 2012 by betsy

[Guest]

Atheism is the absolute belief that God does not exist. It is a clear conclusion in their mind that God - definitely and absolutely - does not exists.

I used to think that, but apparently Cambridge University begs to differ.

So now I just refer to myself as an apostate heretical blaspheming infidel.

[cybercoma]

Has this been posted? Even the world's number one university has trouble with a definition, so why should we worry?

http://www.investiga...definition.html

Great article. This outlines well the issues with defining atheism. Best part is that it brings up William Lane Craig, who betsy has trotted out on occasion to support her "arguments."

Edited November 13, 2012 by cybercoma

[betsy]

The article above presents two stances by two Philosophers (Martin's and Craig's) as to the difinition of atheism. It does not conclude that Marin's position is the definition of atheism. In fact, it cautions:

The exact meaning of 'atheist' varies between thinkers, and caution must always be shown to make sure that discussions of atheism are not working at cross purposes.

Here are excerpts from the article:

Michael Martin, a leading atheist philosopher, defines atheism entirely in terms of belief.[1] For him, negative atheism is simply the lack of theistic belief, positive atheism is the asserted disbelief in God, and agnosticism is the lack of either belief or disbelief in God. This suggests that negative atheism, the minimal position that all atheists share, divides neatly into agnosticism and positive atheism. It is worth noting that the 'positive atheist' need not have certainty that God doesn't exist: it is a matter of belief, not knowledge.

William Lane Craig argues that Martin is 'redefining' the term to argue for the presumption of atheism,[2] and it is certainly clear that atheists involved in these debates tend to be positive atheists. As well as the claim that it represents the etymology of the term, atheists tend to favour this definition because it treats atheism as the 'null hypothesis', and seems to clearly put the burden of proof on the believer. Martin is clear that defence of negative atheism merely requires refutations of theistic argument, while defence of positive atheism requires reasons for disbelief to be given.

[3] One criticism of Martin's definition is that it is not what is commonly understood by 'atheism', and may therefore be confusing and unhelpful. As well as Martin's acknowledgement that dictionaries tend to define atheism positively, many surveys have shown that far fewer people identify as atheists than lack belief in God. For example, Greeley's 2003 survey found that 31% of Britons did not believe in God, but only 10% considered themselves 'atheist'.

[4] Martin's appeal to etymology does not necessarily make his definition more helpful if it is not how the word is understood: and his use of agnosticism to be a question of belief rather than knowledge sits uneasily with this etymological approach.

http://www.investiga...definition.html

-------------------------------

Martin says: "For him, negative atheism is simply the lack of theistic belief, positive atheism is the asserted disbelief in God," But what does that really mean?

Postive atheism - "asserted disbelief in God."

Negative atheism - believes theism is wrong. And what is theism??? Isn't theism the belief in the existence of a god or gods?

Therefore if you lack theistic belief (meaning you don't believe in the existence of a god or gods), then you are an atheist!

After all, if you are an a-theist, it means you are not a theist. That's the etymological basis for it.

Why do you have to "ASSERT" that belief?

What, saying you don't believe in the existence of God is not enough?

As an analogy:

A woman is on the verge of being date-raped. She says, "NO!" The would-be rapist asks, "What do you really mean by, no?" Negative no? OR positive no?

This is just playing with words....tinkering with the definitions when there is actually no need to do it.

Edited November 13, 2012 by betsy

[betsy]

The article says:

"Atheism is a complex term to define, and many definitions fail to capture the range of positions an atheist can hold."

That it's become complex....That the definition of atheism is not so clear as black-and-white to atheists anymore....could also mean they are actually confused as to where they truly stand.

That, it is more of a symptom that their own atheistic belief is eroding?

Just think about that.

Edited November 13, 2012 by betsy

[cybercoma]

No. The fact is that they're very clear about where they stand, but people are using various definitions for atheism that may not accurately describe their positions.

At the end of the day, the point is that you need to make sure you're on the same page when you're debating. Otherwise, you'll simply be building strawman arguments that are completely meaningless.

[BubberMiley]

That the definition of atheism is not so clear as black-and-white to atheists anymore....could also mean they are actually confused as to where they truly stand.

More likely means...you are the one who is confused.

But I'm praying for you and all those who have borne false witness on this forum.

Give thanks and praise.

[GostHacked]

No wonder you keep repeating your arguments/defense - you admit you've not read! Just like your source who also admitted he didn't read!

Eh?

How do you know whether I'm honest or not when you don't have the facts? If you didn't read, you don't know!

The last question is easily found in the various other threads you post that talks about essentially the same topic. He may not have read, but some of us here have, and that is why you don't answer those posters anymore.

[betsy]

No. The fact is that they're very clear about where they stand, but people are using various definitions for atheism that may not accurately describe their positions.

At the end of the day, the point is that you need to make sure you're on the same page when you're debating. Otherwise, you'll simply be building strawman arguments that are completely meaningless.

Some people define themselves as "atheist-agnostic."

Here is the stance of an "atheist-agnostic:" Gods don't exist.....I think.

No. The very fact that they're in that position means they're unsure where they definitely stand. Or they got confused by the way some atheists try to make the definition more complex.

OR, like I said....they're wavering. Their atheistic belief is eroding.

Edited November 13, 2012 by betsy

[Merlin]

I dont like the idea of forcing religion on other people or forcing people to pray but if this chief is not forcing people to pray then that is ok. The new chief is a black man who is also religious, I think that some people would be happy about that. Praying to God for a safe shift and to go home to the family is never a bad thing i would think. The police have a hard job to do and I would think could use all the help they can get.

[BubberMiley]

OR, like I said....they're wavering. Their atheistic belief is eroding.

Sort of like how your Chrisitan beliefs have wavered by your bearing false witness in these forums.

I continue to pray that this backsliding stops and you begin to respect our Commandments as they were written.

Give thanks and praise.

[betsy]

I dont like the idea of forcing religion on other people or forcing people to pray but if this chief is not forcing people to pray then that is ok. The new chief is a black man who is also religious, I think that some people would be happy about that. Praying to God for a safe shift and to go home to the family is never a bad thing i would think. The police have a hard job to do and I would think could use all the help they can get.

Thanks for bringing the discussion on topic. I guess we got carried away.

I'll post a separate topic for it....Cybercoma, BScapper, Sleipnir, etc.. have an interesting view that's worth exploring, and with it having its own thread, may garner more input from others who may not even know about this discussion since it's buried in the "prayer" topic.

But yes, it's amazing how such a harmless and positive suggestion, from a well-meaning chief, became such an issue. It is the "bigotry" against religion, I think, that clouds.

[betsy]

Oh Betsy... Other members urged me not to waste my time,

Your PM must be busy!

I'm addressing this just to make myself clear: no one has to respond.

If they don't have anything to rebutt or say to an argument or a claim, why force yourself to respond? Forcing to say anything - just so to have something to say or ridicule - would more likely backfire anyway.

[Sleipnir]

I'm addressing this just to make myself clear: no one has to respond.

That's probably because you put everyone on ignore that can refute your statements lol

[Mighty AC]

No. The fact is that they're very clear about where they stand, but people are using various definitions for atheism that may not accurately describe their positions.

At the end of the day, the point is that you need to make sure you're on the same page when you're debating. Otherwise, you'll simply be building strawman arguments that are completely meaningless.

Good point. The religious like to portray all atheists as gnostics so they can call it a faith. Though I'm not sure why anyone ever uses the "you're as dumb as I am" argument.

All atheists share a disbelief in deities; but, there are many other labels that apply to just segments of the larger group. Some are also gnostics, most are also agnostics, some are anti-theists, some would call themselves humanists, skeptics, free thinkers, brights, etc. So like Cybercoma suggests, when terms are misused so often, it is important to clarify your position beyond the labels atheist or agnostic.

[betsy]

Good point. The religious like to portray all atheists as gnostics so they can call it a faith. Though I'm not sure why anyone ever uses the "you're as dumb as I am" argument.

All atheists share a disbelief in deities; but, there are many other labels that apply to just segments of the larger group. Some are also gnostics, most are also agnostics, some are anti-theists, some would call themselves humanists, skeptics, free thinkers, brights, etc. So like Cybercoma suggests, when terms are misused so often, it is important to clarify your position beyond the labels atheist or agnostic.

Well, my point is no matter how you try to "clarify" it - when you say you are an "atheist-agnostic" because you believe there is no God (even if you admit that you don't know whether He is true or not) - you are still an atheist, because your belief is that there is no God.

If you cannot simply identify yourself as an "atheist," someone who believes Gods don't exist - (but that you need to explain what you know or don't know) - boy, there is something going on with your belief! Confusion or even possibly your belief is eroding without you even realizing it!

True atheists - those confident where they stand - don't have any problems with their identification as atheists.

Edited November 14, 2012 by betsy

[The_Squid]

True atheists - those confident where they stand - don't have any problems with their identification as such, atheists.

What you don't seem to understand is that the term isn't all that important to an atheist and they would STILL be open to changing their mind if new evidence (ANY evidence at all) presented itself. If fairies suddenly started flying around the neighbourhood and angels descended from the heavens, there would be quite a lot of new converts who were previously atheists.

I am completely confident in my stance as an atheist. And if angels descended from heaven, I would change my mind almost immediately, after I was checked for psychiatric issues to ensure that the angels weren't just delusions.

Edited November 14, 2012 by The_Squid

[betsy]

What you don't seem to understand is that the term isn't all that important to an atheist and they would STILL be open to changing their mind if new evidence (ANY evidence at all) presented itself. If fairies suddenly started flying around the neighbourhood and angels descended from the heavens, there would be quite a lot of new converts who were previously atheists.

I am completely confident in my stance as an atheist. And if angels descended from heaven, I would change my mind almost immediately, after I was checked for psychiatric issues to ensure that the angels weren't just delusions.

Well, what you definitely don't understand is that contrary to your response, the term does seem to be important to some of the people here who had to go at great lengths to explain their position! IN FACT, that's what I'm saying!

If it's difficult for someone to admit plainly and simply that he is an atheist - and instead identify himself as an atheist-agnostic - and go on and on explaining what he believes and what he knows or doesn't know - well, that spells

C O N F U S I O N. Or an eroding belief that there is no God.

Yes, they can change position - I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that. Actually, if you start thinking out loud like Dawkins, who says, he's "not sure that Gods don't exist," I think it's better to identify yourself as agnostics!

You are confident in your stance. Good for you! Nothing wrong with that either. But if you'll read and undertand you'll get that I'm not talking about atheists like you!

Edited November 14, 2012 by betsy

[eyeball]

I guess I'm with the cephalopod on this except my "belief" in the face of God's existence would probably be more akin to my disbelief in Harper. I'd feel like kicking both of them in the nuts for being such dickheads.

Especially God. I mean, wtf was he thinking when he created things like rust and smallpox?

[Mighty AC]

If it's difficult for someone to admit plainly and simply that he is an atheist - and instead identify himself as an atheist-agnostic - and go on and on explaining what he believes and what he knows or doesn't know - well, that's spells

C O N F U S I O N. Or an eroding belief that there is no God.

Not at all, it's simple accuracy.

Gnostic atheists would claim to know that their are no gods. That would be like claiming to know that there are no unicorns, big feet or flying monsters made of pasta. Sure, the claim of nonexistence is very likely to be true in each case, but impossible to prove.

Agnostic atheists also do not believe in deities, but they do not make a knowledge claim. It's not a sliding scale or degrees of disbelief, they simply do not make a claim that is impossible to verify.

[betsy]

Not at all, it's simple accuracy.

Gnostic atheists would claim to know that their are no gods. That would be like claiming to know that there are no unicorns, big feet or flying monsters made of pasta. Sure, the claim of nonexistence is very likely to be true in each case, but impossible to prove.

Gnostics atheists are the true atheists I'm referring to that has confidence. It's not, "that would be like claiming to know." They know!

That's what their pure belief as atheist is based upon - they're confident that there are no gods. They are ATHEISTS!

Agnostic atheists also do not believe in deities, but they do not make a knowledge claim. It's not a sliding scale or degrees of disbelief, they simply do not make a claim that is impossible to verify.

But they are making a knowledge claim! They claim to know that the existence of God could probably not be proven or unproven. They're skeptics!

So, claiming to be an agnostic atheist means the person is either having doubts, or is uncertain about atheism, or is confused....or is on wobbly legs.

Look, what's so difficult in identifying one's self as an atheist if he/she is certain about his/her stance? It must've been explained before....can you please explain that to me again.

Edited November 14, 2012 by betsy

[Mighty AC]

You can create your own meanings if you wish, but by doing so it just make discussion more difficult. That's why the labels themselves are no longer effective. Instead we all have to explain our position.

In your definition you've merged belief and knowledge claims into one term. I assume you do this for both the term theist as well as atheist; which, means you've cut off 2 potential positions. The agnostic atheist already discussed and the agnostic theist; which, would be one who believes in deities, but will not claim to know for sure they exist.

[wyly]

agnostic athiest? more like chicken athiest...I'm absolutely fine defining myself as a 100% athiest i don't feel the need to be pc agnostic athiest...