Bob the atheist?

[Acim]

but we do know, from the OP that he does not believe in gods....

We do not, unless conception and belief are equal. If yes, then I'm glad I'm making the points I'm making, in which case Bob is a true atheist. Those that have ever conceived of god(s) would not be. They'd be another kind of atheist, that is likely based on rejection, and likely closer to agnosticism.

 

[Augustus]

That's a heck of claim too, and I have no idea how you'd verify that the "need for myth" is the defining characteristic of all human beings.

Sounds like a presupposition you've invented to justify a religious belief you may already have (not that you've claimed any here).

I've got no religious belief, I do have a worldview and a value system though. This requires 'stories' to sustain it.

The only characteristic that humans have that (as far as we know) is not shared by other animals is the need to understand the world via narrative. All other characteristics we have seem to be shared by other animals (as far as I can work out anyway).

What would you see as the defining characteristic of humanity?

tMa not that I disagree, it's the hubris of its implications. . . They I must somehow accept that I must learn the mythologies of my pariticular religious culture (which happens to be Christian. . . If I were in India, it would be a different set of myths).

I think you have read something which wasn't there. I never said you have to do anything. That said, if you want to understand a Christian society, you have to understand at least some Christian mythology. The same for Hindu, Muslim, Cherokee, Nazi or whatever.

Even many/most Western atheists are profoundly influenced by the legacy of European Christianity in their society, combined with Enlightenment rationalism and Greek philosophy (amongst others) as these are the the precursors of their value system. If you sent a Humanist back to ancient Greece or the society of the Aztecs their philosophy would elicit a lot of blank stares because they would many of the conceptual references necessary. The myths of the Humanist would seem very bizarre indeed. Just as the idea that the Spartans would kill infants that seemed weak and sent their adolescent males out to murder innocent villagers to toughen them up seems bizarre to us.

Had you grown up in Sparta you wouldn't be 'you' because you would have been told different myths. Had you been born in 9th C Iraq you would almost certainly not been an atheist. Our values depend on the stories we have been told and tell ourselves, not simply from our thought in a vacuum.

What I really meant was, if you want to understand others you need to understand their culture. Culture is shaped and transmitted by myths i.e stories/narratives that explain the meaning of things. Society requires some kind of fictive bond to tie together unrelated humans with differing and often competing aims.

I have no idea what your worldview is, but I'd be very confident that it is sustained by a system of myths/narrative that tell you what is desirable or despicable, virtuous or vulgar, profound or profane.

It's not hubris to state that if you want to understand others, you need to know what makes them tick. Would you agree that narrative is necessary for this purpose?

 

[McBell]

We do not,

Actually, we do.
It is specifically specified in the OP.

To change that specificality is to move the goal post.

 

[Acim]

Though I still am confused why it is so important to theists...

I think this is similar to why one claims to lack a belief but then goes and discusses all their conceptions about what they apparently hold no belief in.

 

[McBell]

I think this is similar to why one claims to lack a belief but then goes and discusses all their conceptions about what they apparently hold no belief in.

Are you claiming it is not possible to understand a belief and not have it?

 

[Acim]

I wasn't sure exactly where to place this, but this seemed a good choice to allow for dissent, and it pertains to religion. So here goes, a thought experiment.


Bob is a simple man. So simple in fact, that he will take at face value anything and everything he is told.

Bob has never heard of religion(edit - or any concept of a god or gods, nice catch Quintessence.) Nobody has ever mentioned it to him, or told him their position on it. The concept is completely unknown to him.

Is Bob an atheist? Why or why not?


I will elaborate after 5 replies.(although forgive me if not immediately after, Ill be indisposed for several hours)

Actually, we do.
It is specifically specified in the OP.

To change that specificality is to move the goal post.

Where is it specifically specified in OP that Bob doesn't believe. Find that word please.

 

[McBell]

Where is it specifically specified in OP that Bob doesn't believe. Find that word please.

Not interested in that game of pigeon chess.

 

[Acim]

Are you claiming it is not possible to understand a belief and not have it?

Nope, not understand per se, but to have conception of a belief, and then not have it (the belief). More like implausible, rather than not possible.

 

[Acim]

Not interested in that game of pigeon chess.

Cause you moved the goal posts.
Your implied concession is appreciated.

 

[McBell]

Nope, not understand per se, but to have conception of a belief, and then not have it (the belief). More like implausible, rather than not possible.

so you cannot lack a belief in any belief that you understand or have a concept of?

 

[McBell]

Cause you moved the goal posts.
Your implied concession is appreciated.

I already said I am not interested in that game of pigeon chess.

 

[Acim]

so you cannot lack a belief in any belief that you understand or have a concept of?

That's the debate as I see it. I lean toward no, but willing to explore it. This particular belief regards existence, so there's that parameter (that I see as crucial).

 

[Acim]

I already said I am not interested in that game of pigeon chess.

And I'm saying you lied in post #183, until you show otherwise. As I quoted OP and debunked your words in #183, then call it whatever rhetorical game you wish, buy you're the one that moved the goalpost.

 

[McBell]

That's the debate as I see it. I lean toward no, but willing to explore it. This particular belief regards existence, so there's that parameter (that I see as crucial).

So there is no way I cannot have a bank account with a million dollars in it, right?
I mean I cannot lack a bank account with a million dollars in it simply because I have a concept of having a bank account with a million dollars.

 

[Acim]

So there is no way I cannot have a bank account with a million dollars in it, right?

Apparently you are interested in a game of pigeon chess.

How does having an account follow from having a belief?

I mean I cannot lack a bank account with a million dollars in it simply because I have a concept of having a bank account with a million dollars.

Need to have my question addressed as I am not seeing how finite bank account relates to abstract thought, at least in the way you are attempting to do it.

 

[McBell]

And I'm saying you lied in post #183, until you show otherwise. As I quoted OP and debunked your words in #183, then call it whatever rhetorical game you wish, buy you're the one that moved the goalpost.

Ah, more bait for the pigeon chess.
Not interested.

 

[Augustus]

But my point is that even the people who say they use "rejection of God" don't actually call everyone who rejects God "atheists".

Think of a definition as being like a serving suggestion on a food package, just because it can be served this way, doesn't mean it always is.

That's why meaning comes from context, not from a dictionary.

As for rejection of gods... how would a person do that, exactly? I've never met a person who can even list all gods, let alone give their opinion about each of them.

Edit: "rejection of gods" is impossible for all practical purposes, but just as I've never met someone who calls polytheists atheists, I've also never met anyone who claimed that there are no atheists at all.

I don't get this strange notion that total knowledge is a prerequisite.

If you have a vague understanding of what you think a god is, all it takes to disbelieve in gods is to not have discovered a god that you believe in.

 

[Acim]

Ah, more bait for the pigeon chess.
Not interested.

Just to be clear, you're the one engaging in pigeon chess. And I'm glad you are uninterested in continuing.

Well until you post again to claim yet another shallow, really unwarranted victory.

 

[McBell]

Just to be clear, you're the one engaging in pigeon chess. And I'm glad you are uninterested in continuing.

Well until you post again to claim yet another shallow, really unwarranted victory.

rotflmao
what victory have I claimed?

nice try

 

[McBell]

Think of a definition as being like a serving suggestion on a food package, just because it can be served this way, doesn't mean it always is.

That's why meaning comes from context, not from a dictionary.



I don't get this strange notion that total knowledge is a prerequisite.

If you have a vague understanding of what you think a god is, all it takes to disbelieve in gods is to not have discovered a god that you believe in.

My apologies.
I will have to see if I can dumb it down for you...