GunnerJ

What is "sounbite atheism," exactly? Is every instance of a summary of an argument equivelent to knee-jerk Scripture quotation?

For example, in the thread mentioned, the phrase "Belief stops a thinking mind" invoked in me a chain of argumentation: That belief is the blind adherence to some idea without any reason for holding it, which allows people to avoid thinking about why they hold the opinions they do, and which stops them from thinking critically.

But when someone stands up on a soapbox and yells Bible verses at passers-by, what logical chain of argumentation is being invoked? None, just an argument from the authority of scripture.

Given this, how can the one be considered a "logical counterpoint" to the other?

Actually, how can the phrase be an example of "atheism" of any kind, given that atheism is not a religion, philosophy, or worldview, and is merely a lack of god-belief? The phrase makes no statement about god-belief, so I doubt that seebs has thought his statement out clearly.

Yellum Notnef

"Soundbite atheism" sounds like a term Radorth would make up when he`s losing and becomes too frustrated to think clearly but still needs to say SOMETHING to stay in the debate and get a "perceived draw".

Ugh.

seebs

Not every instance of a summary of an argument is equivalent to knee-jerk quotations, but there's a tendency for quips to be used *instead* of arguments. You can find examples in most fields; stuff like "it's a child, not a choice" or "you cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war".

I can see that there could be an argument to be made that, in some cases, some beliefs, ardently held despite evidence, are evidence of a barrier to thought. However, it is ludicrous to jump all the way to the fully hyperbolic "belief stops a thinking mind". All belief? Only unfounded beliefs? Only beliefs I personally disagree with?

As to your second question, when people quote Scripture at passers-by, of *course* they mean to invoke lines of argumentation. When someone says "the fool says in his heart there is no God", he's trying to make you think that, if you deny God, you're foolish. The mere fact that the argument is laughably incompetent doesn't mean he isn't trying to invoke it.

I admit to a problem with my use of "atheism" in this context. I meant it as shorthand for "positive atheism and corresponding opposition to any and all beliefs not rooted in metaphysical naturalism". I really need a good word for that overall mindset, because it's fairly common.

It is, of course, hardly universal to atheists; I apologize for the poor choice of wording. I do note, however, that I've seen atheists on these very boards assert that anything short of that is not "real" atheism. *sigh*. So confusing.

Anyway, I don't buy at all the argument that "belief stops a thinking mind". I believe lots of things, ranging from "God exists" to "My senses depect an external reality", and none of them seem to have stopped me from thinking yet. I understand the concern about people adhering mindlessly to belief systems, but if you think about the context of "strength to believe", it could quite easily be referring to the kind of self-confidence that people often need to get through difficult situations - or horrible plots, as the case may be.

As to "logical counterpoint", I meant that they are elegantly and precisely opposed, each carrying precisely the same argumentative weight with people not already convinced. What you say about "invoking chains of argumentation" is very much like the explanation a Scripture-quoting lunatic once gave me for what he thought he was doing.

Thanks, BTW, for calling me on my poor choice of words, and giving me a reason to think this through.

GunnerJ

If the person who made the disputed statement was engaged in a discussion of epistimology, I might agree with you. But he was discussing his opinion of a TV show, so I'm afraid I cannot. There are some situations where it's necessary to spell out your argument, but other, more informal occasions, would only require an outline of a larger idea. He was not arguing the validity of his statement, he was using his statement as a reason why he disliked the opening theme song of Enterprise. And had you merely asked him to justify his opinion, I wouldn't have a problem; I only felt the need to call you on your statement because you disliked the way in which he presented his opinion, which I felt was valid given the circumstances.

In outlining what I felt was the chain of argumentation behind his statement, I was not giving my approval of it. In fact, I dispute his use of the word "belief;" it is vague, and I think that "faith," as in "dogmatism," would have been better.

"If you deny God, you're foolish," isn't an argument, it's a conditional. Actually, it's just a mere restatement of the scripture quoted. The phrase "belief stops thought" is a conclusion to a chain of argumentation that I outlined, flowing from the (or, at least, a) definition of belief (a major premise) and the consequences of it (a minor premise).

Given the content of the phrase, "skepticism" would have been a good term to use.

Do you have any examples of atheist forumers making such statements?

Again, my purpose wasn't to defend the phrase, merely the validity of its use. I would agree, however, that dogmatism stops critical thought.

I see. That makes sense, even if I dispute that the phrase was an example of "soundbite atheism," or even that there is such a thing.

Not a problem. It's part of my job in the Evil Atheist Conspiracy.

seebs

I think some of the stuff Starboy said a while back in the "rife with creationism" thread comes pretty close.

Anyway, I do grant your point; an off-hand comment in the middle of another argument is not necessarily subject to the rigorous demands of argument. Still... I do think the objection is silly, especially given the complete mental void the show represents. Expecting them to make any sense was probably futile in the first place.

I just get sick of casual dismissals of any kind of faith or belief whatsoever as diametrically opposed to reason. Dogmatism, yes; faith or belief, not really.

Pitshade

Off to GRD.

managalar

Thanks for the defense Rimstalker!

I was the one who tossed the 'sound byte' atheism into my rant about enterprise (I did say it was a rant).

I was not trying to make a formal argument, I was trying to describe how the intro to Star Trek enterprise makes me feel. I figured most people on this forum would understand what I ment, in a Chomskian sense.

I could elaborate on it more...My use of the term belief is somewhat broad. I define belief as an unquestionable premise or idea, so its a lot like faith or dogmatism. I've had to deal with a lot of people who insist that I believe some things, like gravity, so its ok for them to believe whatever non-sense they want. But, its not the same thing! As such I have a very strong aversion to the word and its non-probabilistic implications.

The intro music for Enterprise, and the accompanying sequences of space flights, seem to be an attempt to equate 'faith of the heart' and 'strength to believe' with engineering advances. This clashes very sharply with my world view, and I equate belief with giving up being open to alternate explanations...which does not help make space ships that go faster than light (which relates to a rather dogmatic attitude that FTL can't happen...like the Vulcan minister of science saying time travel is impossible...and those kinds of assertions are illogical)

The only things I feel comfortable saying I 'believe' in are 100% abstract things, like numbers and their basic interactions (calculator), simple geometry (square = 4 equal length sides), and most other arbitrary symbols. Anything else, and I get tied up on brain-in-a-jar type uncertainties, so I just say I consider some things probable. Yeah, I know its kind of anal, but I’ve been scared by people who rabidly tried to justify their non-sense world views, after a while I’m just like, fine by your definition, life is ‘absurd’, or concessions like, well, if that’s what it means to believe in something, I don’t believe in anything. <img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />

seebs

Huh. When you put it that way, I share your annoyance at the Enterprise thing. It's particularly offensive because, for better or worse, Roddenberry's universe has always been a secular one.

I think the issue here is that "believe" can mean anything from "this is my best hypothesis" to "I have lots of evidence for this" to "I will continue to hold this to be true no matter what".

That said... I don't think it's necessarily true that belief means giving up on alternative explanations. Sometimes it implies not looking for them very hard, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Paranoia is an alternative explanation which fits the experiences of most people, but I think it's worth giving up.

I think that "belief" is all a spectrum. I can't easily draw a line between "contrary to evidence" and "supported by evidence"; most things have a bit of each, a few quirks and anomalies, and so on... Similarly, I can't easily draw a line in terms of certainty. So... While I think there's a difference between "I believe that two plus two is four, unless someone has an argument against this" and "I believe in unicorns no matter what anyone says", I don't think they're totally dissimilar things; I think they're the same basic thing, with different numbers filled in the blanks.

Okay, so, I think my original comment was wrong, but I'm glad I made it because this is neat to think about.

Marduk

I believe I'll have another beer.