Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Richard ∑wald on February 26, 2012 at 12:08pm

Another very important distinction between atheism/theism you haven't seemed to consider in your belief in atheism as an ideology/conscious choice.

Theism isn't necessarily the converse position to atheism even though atheism is the converse position of theism.

Atheism is the nonbelief in any gods (note the plural).

Theism is the belief in at least one god (not the belief in all gods).

Consider the following graphs depicting belief/non-belief:

All three graphs have the majority position (blue) as non-belief, …not all the blue nonbelievers are going to be atheists. Let's add another to the mix:

Most Buddhist sects do not believe in any god(s), …most of the red constituents can be legitimately called atheists, along with some of the blue constituents, but …most of the non-believers in the blue area are likely to be some form of theist.

Now, it's also very important to realize that in order to graphically represent what the atheist position doesn't believe in, I would have to create over 1000+ such graphs(!).

Amongst these will be descriptions of god(s) you (like any infant) have yet to consider, and have no knowledge of. If, like the infant, you have no conscious basis for non belief in the god, "天理王命" as of yet. How, as you insist in the case of infants, can you call yourself an atheist?

Permalink Reply by leveni on February 26, 2012 at 6:47pm

hi Richard,

Great post.

Permalink Reply by Madhukar Kulkarni on February 29, 2012 at 3:43am

Richard,

Atheism is the nonbelief in any gods (note the plural).

your presentation is always impressive but I find that it is purely high-flying theory. When you say that there is not much difference betweeen not knowing and not believing, you are artificially stretching the meaning of these terms. Not believing is a conscious decision, reached after contemplating both alternative of belief and non-belief. I was out of the internet for 2 days, so more after studying things a bit more.

Permalink Reply by Richard ∑wald on March 1, 2012 at 8:17am

"When you say that there is not much difference betweeen not knowing and not believing, you are artificially stretching the meaning of these terms."

No, I'm pointing out that negation is a null position, whether it's non belief, not knowing, not having, not willing, etc. My argument here lies in the intrinsic property of;  "no/not/non/without".

Further, look to your own posts to find conflations of believing - knowing & non belief - not knowing. I've repeatedly pointed out that these are different things.

"Not believing is a conscious decision, reached after contemplating both alternative of belief and non-belief."

You keep repeating this without providing any evidence or rational justification that non belief is by necessity; more than what it is.

Since when is "no"; a kind of "yes"?

Permalink Reply by Madhukar Kulkarni on March 2, 2012 at 4:14am

Richard ∑wald

Amongst these will be descriptions of god(s) you (like any infant) have yet to consider, and have no knowledge of. If, like the infant, you have no conscious basis for non belief in the god, "天理王命" as of yet. How, as you insist in the case of infants, can you call yourself an atheist?

 

My atheism includes nop-belief in any god, known or unknown. I do believe that any supernatural exists. Had I had any doubt in my mind on this matter, I would not have considered myself an atheist. My position is therefor is not like an infant. I know that there are many ideas about gods in India itself, about which I do not know, but I have excluded them from my belief. 

Atheism is the nonbelief in any gods (note the plural).

Theism is the belief in at least one god (not the belief in all gods).

God is a simple word used to describe a supernatural power and there could be thousands of ideas about this. I do not think that I should investigate them, prove to myself that none of them exists before I declare myself an atheist. The "unknown gods" is a fallacious position because the idea behing god/gods is same, only names and imaginary stories change.

Permalink Reply by Richard ∑wald on March 2, 2012 at 8:40am

"My atheism includes non-belief in any god, known or unknown."

Same as any infant.

Permalink Reply by Joan Denoo on February 27, 2012 at 1:42pm

Madhukar, it is not a silly question for me either. I like your summary:  

A baby is born atheist;

A child learns to be a theist; 

A person using rational and free thinking learns to be an atheist. 

Richard and Joseph, are these correct statements? 

Permalink Reply by Richard ∑wald on February 27, 2012 at 2:11pm

A baby is born atheist;

A child learns to be a theist; 

A person using rational and free thinking learns to be an atheist

I'd only make (3) small changes and a disclaimer* for clarity sake:

A person is born atheist;

A person learns to be a theist (*though, whether indoctrination can be considered a conscious choice is debatable); 

A person using rational and free thinking >may learn to be an atheist.

What can be shown is that there is no one true™ path to either position, nor is there any one true™ path from either position. 

Permalink Reply by Joan Denoo on February 27, 2012 at 9:22pm

I think I answered this but if not, Richard, your changes and disclaimer make sense. 

Permalink Reply by Madhukar Kulkarni on March 3, 2012 at 12:53pm

Richard Ewald

"My atheism includes non-belief in any god, known or unknown."

Same as any infant.

As I have come to see it now, we differ not on the difinition of atheism but on the definition of the word INFANT! I have therefore decided to say that we should agree to disagree. My discussion with you rests here.

Permalink Reply by Richard ∑wald on March 3, 2012 at 9:57pm

"As I have come to see it now, we differ not on the difinition of atheism but on the definition of the word INFANT!"

I'm okay with this definition:

infant |ˈinfənt|noun

a very young child or baby.

What's your definition of the word "infant"?

"I have therefore decided to say that we should agree to disagree. My discussion with you rests here."

Don't presume to speak for me. I don't agree to agree to disagree (because it's a meaningless dismissive platitude, for one), therefore I will call out intellectual dishonesties in this thread or any other until logic, reason and critical thinking are deemed worthless on this forum.

BTW, what does "agree to disagree" actually mean, to you? It's been my experience that when people utter this platitude, it's to avoid admitting that they've painted themselves into a corner, …but in place of admitting this, …they dismiss those who choose to argue their position honestly.

Is this part of the "atheist character" you wish to promote?

 

 

Permalink Reply by Joan Denoo on March 3, 2012 at 10:23pm

 "agree to disagree" That is a good question. For me, when I have discussions with whom I disagree, and value the relationship, such as a beloved cousin, I do not believe god exists; she believes god exists. We agree that we disagree. I have no interest in changing her mind and she has no interest in changing mine. Our experiences are different; I can't discount hers any more than I would allow her to discount mine. 

When it gets to politics, she votes Republican, I usually vote Democrat. She is patriotic in a conventional way; I am patriotic in a resister sort of way. She is pro-war; I am anti-war. She thinks USA soldiers are honorable men; I think USA military men are pawns of illegal and immoral old men. 
Therefore, our affection for one another comes from different realms than religion, politics, economics, or patriotism. We both came from violent backgrounds and each of us learned different ways to cope. She feels worthless without her god to guide her, I feel no need of a god and believe I am made of the same stuff as the stars ... billions and billions of stars and I am part of it all. That makes me feel valuable beyond language.  

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• Next ›
• Page