Jayhawker Soule

... and, sometimes, it doesn't get complicated, we get complicated.

I'm an atheist. I mean by that what most intelligent people think when they hear the word. When I reference my lack of 'God(s)-belief', I'm referencing something that goes beyond 'absence' or 'lack'. I reject the likelihood of every God I've heard of, and I claim it perfectly reasonable to extrapolate from this to a generalized rejection. My position is both absolute and provisional.

HelenM

See, you and I evidently speak the same language, which is the one in common use...I feel that some others have invented their own, to some extent, for purposes that I don't fully understand

I think part of the problem is that some people think the wording substantively affects whether they appear biased or not. I don't personally think that's true. So they are going to unnecessary lengths to avoid saying something that sounds definite enough to be jumped on by those who disagree. But, I don't think that "confuse your opponent" is a wise strategy if you are trying to demonstrate that your reason for your own position is substantive.

And I still think that people who say they take no position are taking a position, even if the only definition of it is "a-other people's positions" and that people who say they have no belief have still rejected certain beliefs and therefore they do have the belief that what other people believe, is not necessarily true.

love
Helen

Jayhawker Soule

One would think that, at some point, these endless discussions about the meaning of 'atheism' would be recognized as symptomatic, especially since the atheist-(a)theist-antitheist-agnostic-(a)gnostic-antignostic community seems to be the only ones perplexed ...

The Other Michael

WJ, I think with atheism as the default state (which I think I've seen you reject in other threads) everyone was going along just fine without a label until the theists came along. Until that time there was no NEED for a label.

Maybe we should force theists to give up their label and become "a-whatever our label was before a label was needed"s, to show that they are the Johnny-come-latelys on the scene.

I'd propose a-rationalists or a-sensibleists or a-realists, but while I think those have some basis there are some theists who seem both rational and sensible and realistic (which greatly puzzles me when I try and grasp how they can then be theists).

cheers,
Michael

Goliath

Helen,

If I have no beliefs regarding the supernatural, how is it possible to reject a belief regarding the supernatural? Would not rejecting a belief form a belief in itself?

Sincerely,

Goliath

Koyaanisqatsi

I hold no beliefs of any kind and by that I mean: to continue to accept as true regardless of the lack of evidence and/or the evidence to the contrary.

Obviously this doesn't apply to "accepting something as true for the sake of argument," since that is a necessarily temporary state which awaits evidence and/or argumentation to complete it.

I know, I know. Bully for me.

HelenM

To me, to have no belief is the same as rejecting a belief, which is the same as not believing the belief, which is the same as believing the belief is not true.

So it's a belief, in other words, as best I can see it.

You're welcome to try to change my mind if you like but I wouldn't bother if I were you. It's the way I think; I don't expect it to change; it's not an opening gambit for some kind of anti-atheist assertion/challenge. It's just how I think.

If you think otherwise then, I can agree to disagree. And would rather do so than argue back and forth and get nowhere because I don't see the practical benefits of doing so.

It's simply an fyi that I told you how I think. It's not intended as a challenge to the way you think. You have the right to think I'm wrong about how I think

love
Helen

DRFseven

No, that's the problem. They think they have categorized the person as not believing in the kind of thing they (the questioners) are asking about. In truth, since only those who are asking the question are privy to that description, the individuals who respond with a yes or no are responding in the dark, so to speak.

There is a big difference in asking about "God" and asking about ice-cream w/nuts. I know all about what ice-cream is and someone can point to ice-cream and ask me if I want it. If I say "yes", we are both talking about the same thing. You never answered the question about the complicated math formula riddled with mystery symbols; if you had no idea what the formula said, would you say you judged it to be true or false? I don't believe you would. I mean, some people might, for convenience sake, answer that they thought it was false, but they'd have no basis. I think you'd answer truthfully that you had no way to give an answer; that you could not address the question.

I think there's an assumption we are all brought up with that "God" means something; the term is bandied about more than the name, Santa Claus, and since every five-year-old is taught to use the term as if he/she understands it, we all grow up assuming it is a meaninful term. I contend it is not.

I further contend that some peoples' recognition of the problems involved in trying to think about aspects of the "God" concept that are contradictory are an important factor in an eventual conclusion of agnosticism or atheism. And even further, I contend that we inadvertently add validation to the idea that "God" is a coherent concept by "glossing over" the incoherence to simply reply "no" when asked if we believe in "God." If theists were required to provide a coherent definition, most couldn't do it; they'd describe a square circle or the universe, which already goes by the name, "the universe."

Koyaanisqatsi

Ok, stop there and let's deconstruct.

According to you, the statement, "I have no belief in leprechauns" equals the statement, "I reject belief in leprechauns."

Why? If I say I have no belief in leprechauns, the meaning is absolute. I have no belief in leprechauns. It also implies, of course, that "belief in leprechauns" for this person is an unacceptable proposition.

If, I say, however, "I reject belief in leprechauns" then I am tacitly conceding that "belief in leprechauns" is a legitimate belief; an acceptable proposition to some, that "I" simply reject.

Those are two entirely different propositions.

Translated: "I do not believe in the 'belief of leprechauns.'"

Clearly, this is a much more complex statement, much more akin to saying, "I do not believe in the tenets and dogma of leprechaunism," and, in turn, implies that the "I" does in fact hold other beliefs of some kind, just not the tenets and dogma of leprechaunism, which, as you can plainly see is in direct contradiction to the statement, "I have no beliefs."

Translated: "I believe leprechaunism is not true."

So, let's go back to the very beginning and see if there is anything relational to the initial statement and this final one:

INITIAL STATEMENT: "I have no beliefs."
FINAL STATEMENT: "I believe leprechaunism is not true."

Clearly these two statements are mutually exclusive on a technical level, unless you properly word the "final statement" to "I consider based upon critical analysis of all evidence presented leprechaunism is not true."

In which case INITIAL and FINAL do not contradict.

So, your fallacy is due to the fact that you improperly used the term "believe" in your final statement when you should have used more technically applicable terminology.

Perhaps you see it more clearly now?

There is nothing wrong with the way you think, you just used the wrong word inappropriately to make an invalid point.

It was easy to correct as I'm sure you'll agree.

And, again, but for a small misapplication of terminology, "works."

As you can see, "I have no beliefs" is a declaration of fact and not a self-contradictory construct as you mistakenly reasoned.

It isn't a question of disagreement. You were simply incorrect in your train of thought in a minor and understandable way that, unfortunately, derailed the train.

It should now, however, be back on track, yes?

Agreed, which is why a detailed deconstruction of what went wrong in your reasoning should close the matter.

Again, you're not "wrong" per se, you just accidentally misapplied terminology that rendered your reasoning invalid.

[ June 18, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Jayhawker Soule

But, in fact, you seem to be unique in this regard.

[ June 18, 2002: Message edited by: ReasonableDoubt ]</p>