Theli

Adrian Selby...

Ooops, I almost missed this post.

I ruled them out on a count of not being humans.
You don't go around calling rocks "stupid" even if it's true. They aren't excacly smart.
I think we can safely limit the attribute (A)theism to humans.

No, I simply limit the definition to humans.
It's impossible to draw a perfect line regarding age and intelligence where the human becomes capable of having a godbelief.
Remember that children learn the word "god" before they develop a godbelief, not the other way around.

I would say he is "doomed" to be an atheist all his life, in lack of a better term.
If someone can't even have a godbelief then ofcourse they lack one.

Where did you get this?
It's not something I said, that's for sure.

Thanks for your reply.

Jayhawker Soule

Does it really make sense to say something like: "The possibility of YWHW is 03.906% while the possibility of the Faerie Queen is 01.103%"? I don't think so. Rather, I think of "possibility" as a binary condition (as opposed to probability).

If that's reasonable, then, it seems to me, the next question is: "Are all things possible or, conversely, are some things possible and others impossible?" If "all things are possible", I don't see how the term 'possible' carries any meaning.

So I'm left (somewhat uncomfortably) with the view that some things are possible and other are not. Now, where/how does one draw the line. No doubt there's a much better way to express this, but, for me, it's the line that distinguishes the natural from the supernatural.

As a result, I do not "admit that there is some, very small, possibility that a god(s) does exist".

[ May 10, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]

[ May 10, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>

Adrian Selby

Cheers Theli.

So, its only humans that can lack a God belief.
That's OK of course, because, hey, why not. I'm interested in the question because some posts here have argued along the lines of 'Does x believe in God? No? then x is atheist'.

If it were only this simple, then bacteria happen to not have a God belief. This would appear to matter only where we're defining atheism as the lack of a belief. I found that slightly odd, but only because I have the inclination to think that atheism is more than simply lacking a belief, even if, to go along the lines you're coming from, it is imperative that one is something that is capable of having any sort of belief at all.

Anyway, regarding your other points.

"Remember that children learn the word "god" before they develop a godbelief, not the other way around."

I suppose this doesn't preclude the possibility that a child could experience God via a visitation, but not have the vocabulary to express it. This interests me because it could mean that a mentally handicapped person needn't be denied an experience of God, they simply couldn't vocalise it. Which of course makes them unable to communicate the fact, but doesn't in itself mean they cannot know God exists. It seems possible to me that one can come to know something independent of the vocabulary required to express it.

You suggest a mentally handicapped person would be doomed to lack a god belief for their lifespan. If a belief is inherently linguistic then I agree, but if not, then insofar as a belief can simply be the propensity to behave in a certain way based on past experience, perhaps they could be said to have a God belief.

Adrian

snatchbalance

Reasonabledoubt,

If someone were to ask me; is there a God? My (short)answer would be no.

If someone were to ask me; do you KNOW that there is no god? Again, to be honest, my answer would be no.

I don't know if the 2 statements are consistent. Logic is just a tool. Nature is full of paradox. yada, yada, yada.(the only fun i'm poking is at myself)


The anthropologists have probably(no I can't asign a ratio) put a kabosh on it, but to primitive tribes, a cigaret lighter was magic.
The point is,I don't know, you don't know, various theists certainly don't know, just where that line might be.(No, I don't give credence to ESP, telekensis, UFO's, etc. I think we can draw the line someplace. But, just what started everything, how everthing got started, if it had a start at all, is still an open question. even the question: what is energy? No satisfying answer.)

One other question; does atheism lead to fuller understanding, and a fuller life, as opposed to religious beliefs? My answer is yes.

SB

[ May 10, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]

[ May 10, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]</p>

Pomp

WJ,

The nonsense about beating someone's wife from the moderator demonstrates the childish nature of you alls' default position or otherwise the other emotional erroneous baggage that justifies or drives your beliefs?

Once again, I have to call either your honesty or your reading comprehension skills into question. As noted by free12thinker, and subsequently ignored by you, "his" assertions that you challenged him to defend were not his assertions at all. You quoted another poster and attributed the quote to free12thinker. When you brushed off this correction, and repeated your challenge that he defend "his" assertions, I made an attempt to demonstrate that you were (ignorantly or dishonestly) begging the question, just as I would be if I asked "WJ, have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

In the future, perhaps it would behoove you to read the posts to which you reply more carefully, in order to avoid such misunderstandings and "nonsense" from me.

parkdalian

Note that atheists who argue that atheism is the default position they are arguing along the subjective (vertical) axis. God is unknown and does not exist perceptually (including discourse).

When they assert that God does not exist, they argue along the objective axis (horizontal in the diagram).

For adult atheists, the concept of God not existing falls into the bright red category of subjective (or conceptual) existence but not objectively existing.

For the atheist baby, atheism consists of an unthought of concept, either the dark red and dark blue quadrants, of course with no way of discerning which one. In that sense we are all
"agnostic atheists" when it comes to all potential unthought of gods.

[ May 11, 2002: Message edited by: parkdalian ]</p>

parkdalian

In case the above diagram doesn't show, click here:
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/parkdalian/index.html" target="_blank">diagram</a>

[ May 11, 2002: Message edited by: parkdalian ]

[ May 11, 2002: Message edited by: parkdalian ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

I agree. I simply add that our current 'open questions', much like the currently resolved open questions of the past, are the proper discourse of science and require no appeal to teleology.

Theli

Adrian Selby...

I never said that...

That's a pretty weird question to ask. It doesn't really mean much, since you haven't provided any definition of that god.
I think the most correct answer you could get from an atheist would be "Wich god?"
By asking someone if they believe in god, you are assuming that only one god can and does exist and that the atheist's "no" is a kind of denial of god's existence.

They do, but to descibe them as atheists is illogical.

I think the problem here lies in that the handicapped child (if not knowing the concept of god) cannot associate his experience with the that concept, and thus cannot have godbelief.
He can't know that what he experienced was god or aliens or Elvis, since those concepts doesn't exist for him.

He cannot associate the experience with the concept of god if he does not know that concept.

I may be wrong here, the border between godbelief and lack of godbelief tends to be abit blurry in this example.

Anyway, thanks for replying.

Adrian Selby

"I ruled them out on a count of not being humans."

This was what I took to mean 'So its only humans..'

Cheers,

Adrian