Freethought & Rationalism Archive

WJ · 07-09-2002, 12:55 PM

jamie/brig!

I think David is exposing the same holes in the perceptions behind 'the meaning of a belief' as I and other's do. So I can let him beat that dead one, but will comment when I see an obvious contradiction. To that end, what you just said supports my view that atheism is a belief about a something rather than an 'absolute' knowledgable justified position of some truth. If you knew God didn't exist, you would have said and explained what you just said quite differently. Just like you, the onus is on the theist who asserts his belief, and is relative to the necessary follow-up with the appropriate justification. You may want to do a little research of say, fideism, to understand those distinctions better.

Jamie's argument is as weak and as old as the arguments relative to the epistemic objectivist/rationalist who thinks that because one can't see/percieve/logically justify something it doesn't exist. Boiling water, air, sound's beyond human perception, mind/body phenom, the ability to compute gravitational forces when it's not needed to survive etc. etc. have all been discussed before here and elsewhere so let's not derail the thread. EDIT: Also, since he has no direct "experience" as a theist, his truth is only subjectivity, and not at all an objective one as he seems to place such a significance of primacy. So, we may agree on the issue of what is considered 'absolute'.

David's [one] point remains insoluble. Either the atheist lacks a belief and therefore purports to say no thing (which is in contrast to what you just said in your methodology) or they argue a non-existent thing, which is nonsensical in itself. Otherwise, as David alludes, an asserted belief in atheism exposes the 'dangerous forms' of evangelicalism.

Walrus

[ July 09, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]

scombrid · 07-09-2002, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by WJ:
To that end, I always thought that the atheist should simply say something like 'god has no meaning to me' and walk away, viz. the evangelist or theist, as apposed to arguing a something that is believed [by them] not to exist. Arguing the non-existence of God only lessens their credibility as having such 'absolute belief' for which atheism seems to hold claim. Aside from all the weak/strong atheism justification baloney, 'agnosticism' seems more consistent with legitimate exploration of the arguments for such (non)existence of God. So I do see your salient point about what it means (or what shall/should it mean)to hold a belief about, in this instance, the non-existence of a God. I think you've shared this similar concern in some of your other thread's too.

Thoughts?

Walrus

Why should we tell them that we're an atheist and then just walk away? So they can shake their head an pity our foolishness while continuing to peddle theirs? So they can go on continuing to assume that we are kitten boiling satanists? God has no meaning, but those that profess belief in some god that seek to impose on me do have consequense in my life. I think it better that my position be defensible in some way.

There many theists that I know with which I've never disussed my unbelief. They accept it and leave me be. It is only the theists that would discriminate against me or harrass me, with which I will argue my position.

[ July 09, 2002: Message edited by: scombrid ]

WJ · 07-09-2002, 01:18 PM

Scom!

Your point is well taken. I hope that David will respond to my similar concern. On the otherhand, I think it would be quite a similar contradiction or diservice for all Christian's to say that no amount of 'evangelicalism' had helped or pursuaded them in their choice to accept that faith.

As for me personally, I am thankful that I knew someone who approached this particular issue only after I had requested or showed an interest. It was not sold, marketed or forced. Rather, it was articulated as an educational process for what it was/is.

Fighting fire with fire doesn't always make it 'right', if that's your point. That's more akin to politics and political tactics and to some degree the dangers of 'evangelicalism'.

Walrus

Jamie_L · 07-10-2002, 04:47 AM

I'm not big on supporting the "lack of belief" arguement, but I also don't believe that believing God doesn't exist is equivalent to believing that God does exist.

Analogy:

Factual options: a) Fire-breathing dragons exist. b) Fire-breathing dragons do not exist.

Which statement do you believe to be true? Or are you agnostic about dragons. I believe b) to be true, based on available evidence.

Is that a lack of belief, or a positive assertion of belief in a negative? Do I lack a belief in dragons, or do I believe they don't exist? Practically speaking, does it matter? I don't think so. With either version of the statement, is it incumbant upon me to prove that dragons don't exist? Given the fantastical nature of dragons when compared to every-day experience, and the complete lack of good evidence for their existence, I don't think so.

Analogy II: You say that you have a magical coffee cup at home that will hover in mid-air if you drop it. I believe your magical coffee cup does not exist. Is it incumbant upon me to prove that it does not exist?

Perhaps I am repeating an oft-used arguement. That doesn't make it a bad one.

Jamie

[ July 10, 2002: Message edited by: Jamie_L ]

WJ · 07-10-2002, 06:22 AM

Jamie!

I don't want to derail the thread because I'm interested in David's original concern with regard to evangelicalism viz. atheism, and the various forms of manifestation thereof. And I think that the existence of god forum would of course be a better place...but let me respond quickly and offer my opinion. You said:

"Is that a lack of belief, or a positive assertion of belief in a negative? Do I lack a belief in dragons, or do I believe they don't exist? Practically speaking, does it matter? I don't think so. With either version of the statement, is it incumbant upon me to prove that dragons don't exist?" [end quote]

1. It is a belief that you hold about physical entities, things or beings. 2. You would belief that they don't exist in this world. 3. It matters when you make an assertion based upon this belief (or lack of) and subject your belief (or lack of) to the rules of language and logic. 4. Yes it is, if you carry your belief forward in asserting it per item three.

So the most convincing thing you as an atheist can say is something like 'the concept of god has no meaning to me.'

The question [one] you have to ask yourself is whether existence in itself is physical or metaphysical and how do you know your belief is absolute. In other words, what does it mean for some thing to exist.

Hope that helps some.

Walrus

Jamie_L · 07-10-2002, 08:34 AM

I hearby cease and desist from derailing this thread. Sorry for the inconvenience. Please go about your business. Nothing to see here.

We are a shrub.

Getting back to the point: I believe the world WOULD be a better place if no one believed in God, but I don't think we're going to get there by trying to convince them there isn't one (not in this lifetime anyway). As time goes on, more people choose not to believe. If we can avoid getting blown up by fundamentalist terrorists, everything should be fine.

I personally don't try to deconvert people because I've got better things to do with my time. Deconverting people seems like a stressful hobby. I prefer more pleasant passtimes.

Jamie

[ July 10, 2002: Message edited by: Jamie_L ]

Queen of Swords · 07-17-2002, 08:00 PM

Bump for David Mathews.

07-09-2002, 12:55 PM	#51
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	jamie/brig! I think David is exposing the same holes in the perceptions behind 'the meaning of a belief' as I and other's do. So I can let him beat that dead one, but will comment when I see an obvious contradiction. To that end, what you just said supports my view that atheism is a belief about a something rather than an 'absolute' knowledgable justified position of some truth. If you knew God didn't exist, you would have said and explained what you just said quite differently. Just like you, the onus is on the theist who asserts his belief, and is relative to the necessary follow-up with the appropriate justification. You may want to do a little research of say, fideism, to understand those distinctions better. Jamie's argument is as weak and as old as the arguments relative to the epistemic objectivist/rationalist who thinks that because one can't see/percieve/logically justify something it doesn't exist. Boiling water, air, sound's beyond human perception, mind/body phenom, the ability to compute gravitational forces when it's not needed to survive etc. etc. have all been discussed before here and elsewhere so let's not derail the thread. EDIT: Also, since he has no direct "experience" as a theist, his truth is only subjectivity, and not at all an objective one as he seems to place such a significance of primacy. So, we may agree on the issue of what is considered 'absolute'. David's [one] point remains insoluble. Either the atheist lacks a belief and therefore purports to say no thing (which is in contrast to what you just said in your methodology) or they argue a non-existent thing, which is nonsensical in itself. Otherwise, as David alludes, an asserted belief in atheism exposes the 'dangerous forms' of evangelicalism. Walrus [ July 09, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

07-10-2002, 04:47 AM	#54
Jamie_L Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: U.S. Posts: 2,565	I'm not big on supporting the "lack of belief" arguement, but I also don't believe that believing God doesn't exist is equivalent to believing that God does exist. Analogy: Factual options: a) Fire-breathing dragons exist. b) Fire-breathing dragons do not exist. Which statement do you believe to be true? Or are you agnostic about dragons. I believe b) to be true, based on available evidence. Is that a lack of belief, or a positive assertion of belief in a negative? Do I lack a belief in dragons, or do I believe they don't exist? Practically speaking, does it matter? I don't think so. With either version of the statement, is it incumbant upon me to prove that dragons don't exist? Given the fantastical nature of dragons when compared to every-day experience, and the complete lack of good evidence for their existence, I don't think so. Analogy II: You say that you have a magical coffee cup at home that will hover in mid-air if you drop it. I believe your magical coffee cup does not exist. Is it incumbant upon me to prove that it does not exist? Perhaps I am repeating an oft-used arguement. That doesn't make it a bad one. Jamie [ July 10, 2002: Message edited by: Jamie_L ]</p>

07-10-2002, 08:34 AM	#56
Jamie_L Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: U.S. Posts: 2,565	I hearby cease and desist from derailing this thread. Sorry for the inconvenience. Please go about your business. Nothing to see here. We are a shrub. Getting back to the point: I believe the world WOULD be a better place if no one believed in God, but I don't think we're going to get there by trying to convince them there isn't one (not in this lifetime anyway). As time goes on, more people choose not to believe. If we can avoid getting blown up by fundamentalist terrorists, everything should be fine. I personally don't try to deconvert people because I've got better things to do with my time. Deconverting people seems like a stressful hobby. I prefer more pleasant passtimes. Jamie [ July 10, 2002: Message edited by: Jamie_L ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-09-2002, 01:18 PM	#53
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Scom! Your point is well taken. I hope that David will respond to my similar concern. On the otherhand, I think it would be quite a similar contradiction or diservice for all Christian's to say that no amount of 'evangelicalism' had helped or pursuaded them in their choice to accept that faith. As for me personally, I am thankful that I knew someone who approached this particular issue only after I had requested or showed an interest. It was not sold, marketed or forced. Rather, it was articulated as an educational process for what it was/is. Fighting fire with fire doesn't always make it 'right', if that's your point. That's more akin to politics and political tactics and to some degree the dangers of 'evangelicalism'. Walrus

07-10-2002, 06:22 AM	#55
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Jamie! I don't want to derail the thread because I'm interested in David's original concern with regard to evangelicalism viz. atheism, and the various forms of manifestation thereof. And I think that the existence of god forum would of course be a better place...but let me respond quickly and offer my opinion. You said: "Is that a lack of belief, or a positive assertion of belief in a negative? Do I lack a belief in dragons, or do I believe they don't exist? Practically speaking, does it matter? I don't think so. With either version of the statement, is it incumbant upon me to prove that dragons don't exist?" [end quote] 1. It is a belief that you hold about physical entities, things or beings. 2. You would belief that they don't exist in this world. 3. It matters when you make an assertion based upon this belief (or lack of) and subject your belief (or lack of) to the rules of language and logic. 4. Yes it is, if you carry your belief forward in asserting it per item three. So the most convincing thing you as an atheist can say is something like 'the concept of god has no meaning to me.' The question [one] you have to ask yourself is whether existence in itself is physical or metaphysical and how do you know your belief is absolute. In other words, what does it mean for some thing to exist. Hope that helps some. Walrus

07-17-2002, 08:00 PM	#57
Queen of Swords Contributor Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Canada. Finally. Posts: 10,155	Bump for David Mathews.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.