EverLastingGodStopper

Alonzo, I disagree. Cats and rocks can't believe or disbelieve in God or gods.

JGL53

Fine - we need all the atheists we can get.

But to be serious, I (thought) everyone would assume I was talking about mentally competent human adults. I thought that was a reasonable assumption. Apparently I was wrong.

So, I will state it in no uncertain terms - I am talking about (apparently) mentally competent human adults - or sophisticated children/teenagers - ONLY. Got it?

BTW, here's a poll for you on belief/disbelief (rather than any alleged knowledge) regarding the invisible sky daddy:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...47#post2695647

You're welcome to come to this thread and straighten my ass out there also.

dettus

I think that atheism is the default position.

Anyway I don't take issue with the idea that cats and rocks are atheists but I think a better way to describe non people would be atheistic. So science is atheistic, cats are atheistic, rocks are atheistic.

I generally really like Alonzo's posts and essays but I disagree with him in regards to agnosticism vs. atheism.

Also if it matters I am not a fan of the raving atheist. I browsed the web site a few times but I wasn't all that interested.

Alonzo Fyfe

I think you have to take it as a given that I already knew that.

So, I think you should then ask, "Given that this is too obvious for Alonzo to miss, what was his point?"

The definitions being offered, "Atheist = does not have a belief in God" has got something wrong with it if it ends up including in the category of "atheist" such things as cats and rocks -- which obviously can't believe or disbelieve in God or gods.


Of course you were.

But you use a definition that makes this ad-hoc -- something that you have to attach with spit and bailing wire. These are Ptolomeic epicycles that you have to add to your theory of meaning in order to get it to fit the observations.

Compare this to the definitions that I offer. This is built into the definition.

How would you answer the question, "Does God exist?"

(1) Yes: theist
(2) No: atheist
(3) I don't know: agnostic
(4) Meow: cat
(5) No answer: rock

This captures the fact that these concepts do not apply to cats and rocks (because they cannot comprehend the question, let alone answer it).

It also captures the concept of "Gnostic" which refers to the set (1) + (2).

The set of definitions (the honest definitions of (1) through (3)) are jointly exhaustive and mutually exclusive, making them easy to use.

There is nothing to prevent you from using your definitions. Yet, I do not see how they offer any conveniences in communication that I can not handle with a lot less effort. Furthermore, I suspect that if you use those definitions out on the street, you are going to generate a lot of strange looks and convusion.

I have even seen it written, several times, "All infants are born atheists, and only become theists through indoctrination."

Any theist reading this would be justified in saying, "Look at the way these people twist and distort language to suit their purpose. It makes as much sense to call an infant an atheist as it does to call my cat or a rock in my garden an atheist."

They are right. Infants belong in the same category with cats and rocks -- as entities that are not capable of understanding the question, for whom the concept of 'atheist' simply does not apply.

Mathew Goldstein

What makes this different from those other absurdities is popular opinion. We don't live on our own island, we live in a society with a culture and that majority culture provides a context for defining what is or is not a live belief counter-belief set. Atheism is a dissenting belief as long as theism is a commonly held and/or orthodox belief.

bernie43

jgl53 wrote: So, re knowledge of god, the choices are:

1. You know. (gnostic)
2. You don't know. (agnostic)

Re belief in god's real existence, the choices are:

1. You believe. (theist)
2. You don't believe. (atheist or, if you prefer, non-theist)

These are two separate questions and both have either/or, yes/no answers.

later Mathew Goldstein took up that atheists react within a culture of believers.

Isee much value in that suggestion. somebody growing up in cultures with only one God become atheists to that notion and when they hear about foreign gods they find it likely they are made the same way. Humans constructs gods for social and cultural purposes.

So in addition to the scheme above I add

re participation in the rituals towards and emotional relation to the cultural faith in god, the choices are:

1. You practice in the rituals. (participant, practicer, believer)
2. You don't participate, or practice. (your a non-believer)

re feeling moved by or touched at heart by the rituals, the choices are:

1. You do feel touched, you feel moved by the rituals. (Your a touchy feeling personality but you don't have to have faith in God. Like me you are a touch at heart by the rituals atheist)
2. You don't feel moved or touched at heart by the rituals. (Your a common atheist)

I am surpriced there are soo utterly few of us that are (for lack of better words for it)

touch at heart culturally relational atheists.

What I like to know is. A culture is something one participate in or stand beside as an outsider. Atheists are in that way outsiders in US. They stand beside the culture of having faith in the culture symbols of referring and relating to God as the symbols of unity. Many atheists also seem to lack the touched at heart or being moved by the rituals of the culture. Which also make them outsiders.

I don't participate either but do feel touched at heart and moved by the rituals so what is the proper way to refer to this situation? Emotional Naturalist? Naah that sound too Flim flam?

I am a Relational Naturalist.

JGL53

You are a hard sell, aren't you AF? Let's cut to the chase here, one more time:

Again, you are asking a "knowledge" question and, simultaneously confusing it with a "belief" question. My answer to your question is (3) I don't know. The only other logically possible option would be "I know".

Your other choices listed of (1), (2), (4), and (5) are simply surreal - i.e., as if I had asked "What time is it?" and you answered "Carrot.".

Now, if you had asked instead “Do you believe in the existence of god?", my answer would be "No". The other logically possible answer is "Yes.".

Knowledge claims are knowledge claims, now and forever, until the end of time.

Expressions of belief are expressions of belief, now and forever, until the end of time.

This concludes lesson #3 from our syllabus.

Will you need a lesson #4, or can we rap up the school year now?

.

1veedo

bernie43, that's exactally what I was saying at post #4.

Agnosticism is not somehow between atheism and theism. How certain, aragant, or ignorant a person can be.

Weak atheists are actually agnostic where strong atheists are convinced that there is no such thing as God.

CaptDave

I don't feel comfortable with the strong atheist's positive assertion that there is no God. Technically, that means I don't know. The problem with that answer is that it doesn't specify which direction (if any) I'm leaning. Therein lies the utility of the term, "weak atheist." Technically I'm agnostic but for all practical purposes, I'm an atheist.

Corona688

I agree that atheism includes agnosticism, if atheism is about belief. "I don't know" isn't a valid answer for "do you believe in god". It's a total nonanswer. You don't know if you believe? When can you arrange to ask yourself?