Atheists: A Question About Newborn Kittens.

[Secret Chief]

Apatheist is a subset of atheist.

She may wish to drill down somewhat.

 

[Aupmanyav]

One of the most frustrating traits of much of the discussion between theists and atheists is that both sides often end up discussing logic and evidences with various degrees of honesty and awareness of facts, but ultimately neither theism nor atheism has much to do with logic nor with evidence.

how come, luis?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Personally, I've never found a concept that includes everything that's definitively a god and excludes everything that's definitively not a god.
If you've figured this out, please share.

salix also believes that. he has figured it out.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Here are two ideas I take as axiomatic when considering any approach to what "atheism" is or who is or isn't an atheist:

1. Atheists exist. If a definition or approach implies that it would be humanly impossible to be an atheist, I know it's wrong.
2. Theists aren't atheists. If a definition or approach ends up implying that any theists are atheists, I know it's wrong.

I've never met anyone who's come out and argued against either of these points, but I've found lots of people argue for definitions of "atheist" that violate one or both of them.

i will give the two ideas deep thought. i hope i will figure them out.

 

[LuisDantas]

Apatheist is a subset of atheist.

Is it? I see them as fairly independent things.

On second thought, I can see how a certain kind of theist would have trouble in being an apatheist as well.

 

[LuisDantas]

how come, luis?

It comes from my conclusion that atheism and theism are aesthetical stances towards the matter of whether a god "exists".

It is a very vague question, but people will have their preferences in responding to it all the same.

 

[Heyo]

Those are different definitions than I've ever heard. My understanding is that hard agnosticism is the claim that the existence of gods is inherently unknowable ("we can't ever know") and weak agnosticism is the claim that the existence of gods is currently unknowable, given our current level of knowledge ("we can't know right now").

Basically correct, I'd just formulate it a bit different. Instead of "we can't know", I say "we don't know".

It seems like you're putting a lot of weight on that capital "A," but I'm not sure what distinction you're trying to make.

There is a philosophical position, Agnosticism, that states that the existence and nature of god(s) isn't known (or can't be known).
And then there is the colloquial meaning of agnostic which is basically synonymous with ignorant. It has also stripped the important "and nature" part of the original meaning. A small "a" agnostic is basically the fence sitter people accuse us to be. Ignorant of the existence of god(s) and nothing else.
Also, the adverb can be used for other fields of knowledge, e.g. "I'm agnostic towards the existence of aliens":

 

[The Hammer]

Do you consider newborn kittens to be atheists?

Why or why not?

(inspired by @Heyo - hope you don't mind).

I consider them to be....... kittens.....

 

[Heyo]

We seem to have a classical argument about logic and categories.
The "Aristotelians" claim the law of the excluded middle. I.e. you are either a theist or you are an atheist. You can't be both and you have to be one of those.
The "Platonians" say that this view is a false dilemma. There is something in between (or outside of) atheists and theists. At least there is a class of things to which philosophical positions don't apply. It's not in the nature of a kitten to hold a position.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Okay. Let's try the Roman god Mercury. Can you walk me through your process?

Sure. Let's say hypothetically that you've never heard of theistic concepts: theism, polytheism, the Roman Pantheon, and Mercury, as I'm confident is the case with all newborns. You are completely unaware any of these concepts...entirely in ignorance of them. Given you have no idea what theism is, how can you possibly lack belief in Mercury when you are completely ignorant of the existence of the concept?

If you think that's what atheism is...lacking belief in a defined concept out of ignorance, what does that say about the validity of atheism?

Just because you're missing my point doesn't make my argument a straw man.

I'm not missing the point. You're refuting the "overarching concept of 'god'" that was never part of the argument.

 

[SalixIncendium]

salix also believes that. he has figured it out.

True, but I won't introduce that, because that would derail the discussion.

 

[Secret Chief]

I consider them to be....... kittens.....

Radical.

 

[LuisDantas]

If you think that's what atheism is...lacking belief in a defined concept out of ignorance, what does that say about the validity of atheism?

That it is a good fit to Occam's Razor, Hitchen's Razor and some other interesting razors and similar abstract entities.

IMO it also says that atheism is healthier for religious practice - indeed, for most any aspect of life - than theism. Contrary to the insistence of many Abrahamic preachers, belief is not inherently virtuous or meritory.

 

[SalixIncendium]

That it is a good fit to Occam's Razor, Hitchen's Razor and some other interesting razors and similar abstract entities.

IMO it also says that atheism is healthier for religious practice - indeed, for most any aspect of life - than theism. Contrary to the insistence of many Abrahamic preachers, belief is not inherently virtuous or meritory.

Why oh why must we always default to Abrahamic belief when attempting to support the validity of atheism?

May as well change the name of the theistic position to Aabrahamic.

 

[LuisDantas]

Why oh why must we always default to Abrahamic belief when attempting to support the validity of atheism?

Mainly because it is those that make our existence as an outspoken group necessary, I would think.

May as well change the name of the theistic position to Aabrahamic.

You may be more correct than you realize.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why oh why must we always default to Abrahamic belief when attempting to support the validity of atheism?

May as well change the name of the theistic position to Aabrahamic.

FWIW, plenty of non-Abrahamic religions also equate religiosity with virtue.

 

[SalixIncendium]

FWIW, plenty of non-Abrahamic religions also equate religiosity with virtue.

Which ones and how do they equate the two?

 

[LuisDantas]

FWIW, plenty of non-Abrahamic religions also equate religiosity with virtue.

Religiosity, or theism?

 

[Aupmanyav]

It comes from my conclusion that atheism and theism are aesthetical stances towards the matter of whether a god "exists".
It is a very vague question, but people will have their preferences in responding to it all the same.

imho, it is an important question, touches the core of existance, how the universe and life came about and what after death.

 

[Aupmanyav]

FWIW, plenty of non-Abrahamic religions also equate religiosity with virtue.

yeah, hinduism and sikhism in india, but they do not stifle other views.