Richard Dawkins and Peter Singer

[Sparko]

I find too many people attempt the anchorage (aka "base starting point"), then simply assert the presence of the rest of the bridge.
That'd be better written the other way round - that evolution is used as a starting point for abiogenesis - as the evidence for evolution is far far better than that for abiogenesis.

Evolution can't occur without life first existing. Evolution can exist whether life was created by a god, or started naturally. So the starting point is life itself and how it came to be. Then you can move on to evolution of life forms.

it is just an analogy. Showing evidence or logic for a god, doesn't specify which god or how many gods. Sure Christians use that as a starting point, but so do muslims, hindus, etc. Once the logic for there being a god is there, then you can move on to argue that the god is the god of your religion. Of course not all theists start at that point. But those that do, are not specifying which god when they just argue that this universe did not get here by itself.

[Adrift]

Then Huxley is wrong. Or, most likely, Huxley was concentrating on the majority of atheists/theists who do claim 'gnosis', and not on the minority who admit that they do not know whether or not there are gods, but side uncertainly with one view or the other.

Huxley coined the word "agnostic". I think he of all people would be in the best position to know what he meant by it.

Pascal's wager is aimed at producing theistic agnostics.

To the contrary, Pascal's wager is aimed at producing theists from a position of agnosticism. Look, using your redefinition of "agnostic", just about everyone is an agnostic. Few people, either atheist or theist, if they're honest with themselves, can claim absolute 100% certainty about, well, anything. And as the agnostic blogger I quoted earlier points out, opening these terms so wide that they include just about anyone will only result in making the terms meaningless.

Assertions and arguments from authority aren't helpful.

I wasn't making an argument/assertion from authority. I wasn't saying "this is true because Dr. Craig says it". Though, as a philosopher of religion he's certainly a better authority on the subject than either you or I.

Most etymological resources I can find suggest otherwise, that "atheism/atheist" was used to refer to lack of belief as well as active disbelief millennia ago, and that lack of belief may have been the original meaning.

Words are not defined by their etymology, they're defined by how they're used, and atheism has been used to suggest a belief that god/s do not exist going back to ancient times. So, for instance, Christians were accused of being atheists not because they "lacked belief" (they certainly did not lack belief), but because they believed the Roman gods of the Pantheon did not exist (or if they believed they existed, they assumed they were demons). Likewise, one of the most important, and influential works produced during the era of the Enlightenment, the Encyclopédie edited by Denis Didero defined atheism as,

"The opinion of those who deny the existence of a God in the world. The simple ignorance of God doesn't constitute atheism. To be charged with the odious title of atheism one must have the notion of God and reject it."

Until very recently, the general definition of atheism in popular dictionaries was,

Merriam-Webster’s: (Atheism) a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Compact Oxford English Dictionary: (Atheism) the belief that God does not exist

Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary: (Atheist) someone who believes that God or gods do not exist

It's only been within the last few years that dictionaries have begun to append the definition with phrases like "lack of belief":

Merriam-Webster's: a : a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods b : a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

But even here we can see that "strong disbelief" is still mentioned, since that's how most people in the world, including most atheist, still understand the term.

I know from my own personal experience that you are wrong on the last point, since I was actively engaged in atheist groups on the internet more than thirty years ago, and this same point was regularly raised then. Most people might. Most Christians seem to. But not most atheists. I have seen this discussion played out time and time again, and it is always the believers that insist that atheism is a belief that there is no god, and the atheists insisting otherwise. Certainly most atheists I've encountered characterise atheism as a lack of belief rather than a belief in a lack, and I am very sceptical that you have any grounds for claiming otherwise. How could you possibly know?

You were actively engaged in atheist internet groups since before 1987? A number of the Christians on this forum were once atheists or agnostics, or know an atheist or agnostic intimately. There isn't some underground club for atheists that requires a special knock. Most of us know an atheist or were one. My own personal experience, and association with the largely atheist/agnostic anarcho-punk scene since the early 90s has resulted in most of my close friends and acquaintances being atheist or agnostic. I know what they believe. I've read their literature. I've listened to their music. I've gone to their shows. I've broken bread with them. I've had more than a few conversations over a few beers late late into the night. They're blunt about their atheism being an active belief that there is no god.

To which the answer is "I do not believe there is a god."

[element771]

So? Dawkins being an atheist doesn't mean that everything he says is part of atheism

That doesn't seem to stop Christian apologists using it in support of the Christian god.

This seems to be a double standard.

[rogue06]

Evolution can't occur without life first existing. Evolution can exist whether life was created by a god, or started naturally. So the starting point is life itself and how it came to be. Then you can move on to evolution of life forms.

Evolution only takes place after life has arisen, regardless of how it arose.

[firstfloor]

You dancing around my citations and the basic nature of the reasons people believe. Atheist and other Philosophical Naturalists do not consider 'countless miscellaneous bits and pieces of information and experiences that you pick up as you go through life.' This basically confuses the issue. The question of the belief in Gods or unicorns by the Philosophical Naturalism is based on whether the objective evidence supports their existence, and the bottom line is that is science as referenced..

Beliefs and the reasons people give to themselves and sometimes to others for their beliefs are very personal and difficult to get at precisely because most people are not critical thinkers. That is they generally do not analyse their beliefs thoroughly, if at all. Not only that but the world is awash with weirdos and charlatans so a person needs to take some responsibility for their own beliefs if they care for the truth. Happily, the truth is not hidden to nearly the degree that the religioso would have you believe.

Science has looked for and found nothing spooky; no gods, no heaven, no hell, no afterlife, no pixies, fairies, magic incantations, wizards, witches, goblins, miracles or anything that might remotely resemble anything traditionally supernatural.

This is does not matter to the religioso who just prefer the convenience of having a god – there is no doubt that a god is useful in all sorts of social situations.

[Roy]

I've reconstructed the conversation, with emphasis, to show the disconnect below:

quote]Huh? The part I was taking issue with in your post was obviously your confusing of terms by asserting that there is such a thing as theist or atheist agnostics. That should have been clear not only based on my underline, but also in the other quotations I cited. Nothing in the above requotes says anything about an atheist agnostic or a theist agnostic. To the contrary, Huxley says that both atheists and theists claim a certain gnosis and that the agnostic does not claim gnosis.

Then Huxley is wrong. Or, most likely, Huxley was concentrating on the majority of atheists/theists who do claim 'gnosis', and not on the minority who admit that they do not know whether or not there are gods, but side uncertainly with one view or the other.

Huxley coined the word "agnostic". I think he of all people would be in the best position to know what he meant by it.[/quote]
So do I. I did not say that Huxley was wrong about the meaning of "agnostic", only about the existence of (a)theists who don't claim 'gnosis'.

To the contrary, Pascal's wager is aimed at producing theists from a position of agnosticism.

No it isn't. It does absolutely nothing to remove agnosticism, only to add theism.

Look, using your redefinition of "agnostic", just about everyone is an agnostic. Few people, either atheist or theist, if they're honest with themselves, can claim absolute 100% certainty about, well, anything.

Right. So in any discussion about 'gnosis' there will be an assumed level of certainty which counts as 'knowing' something. Pointing out that people only 'know' that a god exists with as much certainty that they know what the capital of Argentina is only detracts from the discussion.

I am not redefining agnostic, nor am I saying that anyone is 100% certain about anything. Those are irrelevancies that you appear to be raising because you have no answer to my actual points.

As Craig points out in the article I cited,

Assertions and arguments from authority aren't helpful.

I wasn't making an argument/assertion from authority. I wasn't saying "this is true because Dr. Craig says it".

Then why mention Craig at all? You were arguing from authority.

it's only within the last decade or so that this new redefining of atheism has spread through the internet.

Most etymological resources I can find suggest otherwise, that "atheism/atheist" was used to refer to lack of belief as well as active disbelief millennia ago, and that lack of belief may have been the original meaning.

Words are not defined by their etymology, they're defined by how they're used, and atheism has been used to suggest a belief that god/s do not exist going back to ancient times.

As the source I referenced indicates, 'atheism' has also been used to suggest a lack of belief that gods do exist going back to ancient times. Ignoring that usage to insist solely on the other is unwarranted. Anyway, since I was explicitly not defining 'atheism' by it's etymology, but by its original meaning, your objection is misdirected.

You were actively engaged in atheist internet groups since before 1987?

Yes. USENET discussions.

A number of the Christians on this forum were once atheists or agnostics, or know an atheist or agnostic intimately. There isn't some underground club for atheists that requires a special knock. Most of us know an atheist or were one. My own personal experience, and association with the largely atheist/agnostic anarcho-punk scene since the early 90s has resulted in most of my close friends and acquaintances being atheist or agnostic. I know what they believe. I've read their literature. I've listened to their music. I've gone to their shows. I've broken bread with them. I've had more than a few conversations over a few beers late late into the night. They're blunt about their atheism being an active belief that there is no god.

Then you should know the difference between a lack of belief in god and a belief in the lack of a god.

But this:

To which the answer is "I do not believe there is a god."

...suggests you don't.

[Roy]

This seems to be a double standard.

How so? I'm not saying that natural theology is part of Christianity.

[Roy]

Evolution can't occur without life first existing. Evolution can exist whether life was created by a god, or started naturally. So the starting point is life itself and how it came to be. Then you can move on to evolution of life forms.

Mmmm. But historically and evidentially it works the other way around - evolution is easier to establish, and was established earlier, than abiogenesis. So the analogy is flawed unless Christianity predates theism.

it is just an analogy. Showing evidence or logic for a god, doesn't specify which god or how many gods. Sure Christians use that as a starting point, but so do muslims, hindus, etc. Once the logic for there being a god is there, then you can move on to argue that the god is the god of your religion. Of course not all theists start at that point. But those that do, are not specifying which god when they just argue that this universe did not get here by itself.

Unfortunately far too many seem to think that showing that any god exists is enough to assume that their specific god exists. The bridge is never built.

[element771]

How so? I'm not saying that natural theology is part of Christianity.

Because you judge all Christians apologists as using natural theology incorrectly as a blanket statement.

However, when Dawkins says something wrong...he doesn't speak for all atheists.

You are judging all apologists by the mistake that some make while simultaneously saying that all atheists should not be judged by a mistake made by some atheists.

[element771]

Mmmm. But historically and evidentially it works the other way around - evolution is easier to establish, and was established earlier, than abiogenesis. So the analogy is flawed unless Christianity predates theism.

Are you really arguing that evolution is possible without life being established first?

Maybe I am missing something.

[Sparko]

Mmmm. But historically and evidentially it works the other way around - evolution is easier to establish, and was established earlier, than abiogenesis. So the analogy is flawed unless Christianity predates theism.

An analogy doesn't require matching on every point. It is a way to explain something by making a comparison. Man, you really are being pedantic lately. What's gotten into you?

Unfortunately far too many seem to think that showing that any god exists is enough to assume that their specific god exists. The bridge is never built.

That is their problem. and beyond the scope of this discussion.

[Adrift]

I did not say that Huxley was wrong about the meaning of "agnostic", only about the existence of (a)theists who don't claim 'gnosis'.

No, he isn't wrong. The whole point of coining "agnostic" was to offer a label for those who have no knowledge either way concerning the existence of god/s. It was not coined to represent those people who may lean a little one way or the other, but only a little. That's just something people like you made up way way after the fact. It isn't what Huxley intended.

No it isn't. It does absolutely nothing to remove agnosticism, only to add theism.

There is no such thing as an agnostic theist. If you are a theist, by default you are no longer agnostic.

Right. So in any discussion about 'gnosis' there will be an assumed level of certainty which counts as 'knowing' something.

What is the level? Who decides? How is it that everyone in the world is not an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist? What does the word theist or atheist even mean at that point?

I am not redefining agnostic, nor am I saying that anyone is 100% certain about anything. Those are irrelevancies that you appear to be raising because you have no answer to my actual points.

They're perfectly relevant, and I've been doing a fine job answering your actual points.

Then why mention Craig at all?

Um, because I think he makes a good point?

You were arguing from authority.

Nope. That wasn't my intent at all, and I should know, because I'm the one who posted it.

As the source I referenced indicates, 'atheism' has also been used to suggest a lack of belief that gods do exist going back to ancient times. Ignoring that usage to insist solely on the other is unwarranted. Anyway, since I was explicitly not defining 'atheism' by it's etymology, but by its original meaning, your objection is misdirected.

Your source was a poorly drafted, and poorly sourced atheist website (defineatheism.com ) with sources that link to other atheist websites. It doesn't say anything about "lack of belief". It asserts that "atheist" was coined without implying antitheism, and that even at that, the two words "atheist" and "antitheism" were eventually confused until the present day when the "better-educated populace permeated in tandem with the advancements and growth of modern civilization" (), and accepted a distinction between the two. It's a load of nonsense. What would it even mean to "lack belief in God" in a period where everyone was a theist? Unless you were born and raised as a potato, that's absolutely meaningless.

Then you should know the difference between a lack of belief in god and a belief in the lack of a god.

I know quite well the difference between the two.

But this:

...suggests you don't.

How does that suggest it?

[Roy]

Because you judge all Christians apologists as using natural theology incorrectly as a blanket statement.

However, when Dawkins says something wrong...he doesn't speak for all atheists.

You are judging all apologists by the mistake that some make while simultaneously saying that all atheists should not be judged by a mistake made by some atheists.

Ok, I understand. I do not think all Christian apologists jump straight from natural theology to Christianity, though it does seem to be a common failing. I certainly don't judge all apologists by the technique of e.g. JohnMartin.

[Sparko]

Ok, I understand. I do not think all Christian apologists jump straight from natural theology to Christianity, though it does seem to be a common failing. I certainly don't judge all apologists by the technique of e.g. JohnMartin.

But we all just voted him to be our official spokesperson.

[Roy]

Are you really arguing that evolution is possible without life being established first?

Maybe I am missing something.

No. Definitely not. I'm saying that there is more and better and earlier-recognise evidence for evolution than for abiogenesis.