Bob the atheist?

[Acim]

rotflmao
what victory have I claimed?

nice try

You claimed the goal posts moved based on your lie that the word believes is specified in OP. Thus you tried to move the goal posts by saying it is specified, when in reality it wasn't.

It stands that we don't know what Bob believes. If you would like to argue otherwise, please show it.

 

[1137]

Perhaps not as ignorant as a baby, but I bet pretty damn close.

Unless, of course, you claim to be familiar with every single god concept....

I don't need to know every god concept, I just need to understand the concept of gods.

 

[1137]

Exactly.


It is if you have your way.

Are you being intentionally dense? Atheism rejects proposed evidence and arguments for god. If you're not even aware of these arguments or evidence, or do not have the cognitive capacity to do so, you are not an atheist. As for my way, I believe atheists tend to be a position which weighs the reason and evidence. It is the atheists here who seem to want to be compared to babies or the cognitively impaired.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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'm deriving the meaning from the context. I'm telling you that how the word is used is not in line with a "rejection" definition.

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

You can't reject what you haven't even considered.

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.

If you're saying that "to not have discovered a god you believe in" is all that's needed to be an atheist, then congratulations: you subscribe to the lack of belief definition.

Those who subscribe to the rejection definition need to assert "gods don't exist".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are you being intentionally dense? Atheism rejects proposed evidence and arguments for god. If you're not even aware of these arguments or evidence, or do not have the cognitive capacity to do so, you are not an atheist.

I'm aware of some of them. I'm certainly not aware of all of them. In the future, I'm confident that I'll hear arguments for gods that I haven't heard as of today. I'm still an atheist today, though.

I also recognize that true conclusions can have bad arguments, so I don't take the failure of an argument as a sign that the conclusion being argued is necessarily false. Why do you do this?

 

[Augustus]

I'm deriving the meaning from the context. I'm telling you that how the word is used is not in line with a "rejection" definition.

As we agreed before, people use it to mean disbelief in God and disbelief in gods. Well done for noticing again.

If you're saying that "to not have discovered a god you believe in" is all that's needed to be an atheist, then congratulations: you subscribe to the lack of belief definition.

Those who subscribe to the rejection definition need to assert "gods don't exist".

They only need to assert they disbelieve in gods, they don't need to claim knowledge of every single god concept ever imagined and profess to have actively ticked each and every one off their list.

Belief is just belief.

Anyway, I really can't be bothered going through the same old arguments again and again. We appear to have completely different views on human cognition.

 

[Willamena]

So you're using the two-tier approach I described before: when deciding whether a person is an atheist, there are "important" gods (e.g. Yahweh) where a person has to have an opinion of the god to be an atheist and "unimportant" gods (e.g. Perkunas) where the person doesn't need to hold an opinion.

When deciding whether a person is an atheist, the ONLY requirement is that they've rejected God or gods in disbelief. Similarly, when deciding whether a person is a theist, the ONLY requirement is belief in God or gods.

The person who believes in X has already rejected Y, Z and the entire rest of the alphabet* in his belief.

It's not like it's a choice.

*the 'alphabet' being, of course, all the versions of gods he's encountered in his conscious existence, be it just the one or a hundred

 

[Willamena]

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

It is more likely the case that you have it because you understand it.

 

[Willamena]

I'm deriving the meaning from the context. I'm telling you that how the word is used is not in line with a "rejection" definition.

When I say I don't believe in Santa, what I mean is that I believe there is no Santa. When someone asks me whether I believe in mind, I take it to mean whether I believe mind exists. Similarly, when I say I don't believe in God or gods, I'm stating that I don't believe that they exist. That's rejection.

 

[The_Fisher_King]

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.

I really like this

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As we agreed before, people use it to mean disbelief in God and disbelief in gods. Well done for noticing again.

We didn't agree to that. Go back and check. People who say they mean this don't actually use the word that way.

They only need to assert they disbelieve in gods, they don't need to claim knowledge of every single god concept ever imagined and profess to have actively ticked each and every one off their list.

To disbelieve in gods, you need to have a concept that you've labelled "gods" and that is fleshed out enough for you to consider it and decide that gods don't exist.

Care to flesh out this "god" concept your approach requires? If you can't do it, then the only way to reject gods is one by one.

When I say I don't believe in Santa, what I mean is that I believe there is no Santa. When someone asks me whether I believe in mind, I take it to mean whether I believe mind exists. Similarly, when I say I don't believe in God or gods, I'm stating that I don't believe that they exist. That's rejection.

That works fine for the gods you know about; how about the gods you don't?

For a better analogy, instead of rejecting Santa, try rejecting "Christmas characters", including everything from Santa to Rudolph to Mr. Hanky to the Elf on the Shelf to Krampus and the characters you've never heard of that feature in the traditions of some family you've never met.

Can you reject the existence of Christmas characters? Or can you just say that you don't believe in any of the ones you've encountered?

 

[Willamena]

That works fine for the gods you know about; how about the gods you don't?

What gods? (rhetorical question) I can make no judgements about things I'm not acquainted with. That I have no opportunity to reject the gods that you allege says nothing about atheism. Atheism is me not believing in God or gods.

To apply the concept to a particular, you have to acknowledge the particular. We each know only as much of the world as we know, and to require us to have more information than that is an absurdity. Similarly, to require we believe in more than that in order to be a proper atheist is an absurdity: the sum of our information is all the propositions about the world that we hold. Belief is the investment in the truth of those propositions--not other propositions that others may have, and not imagined propositions that may or may not be.

Can you reject the existence of Christmas characters? Or can you just say that you don't believe in any of the ones you've encountered?

I cannot disbelieve where, for me, there is no subject of disbelief. It's not possible.

 

[McBell]

You claimed the goal posts moved based on your lie that the word believes is specified in OP. Thus you tried to move the goal posts by saying it is specified, when in reality it wasn't.

It stands that we don't know what Bob believes. If you would like to argue otherwise, please show it.

ouch.
Again, what victory did I claim?

The OP specifically specified Bob have no concept of both gods and religion.
Please be so kind as to explain how Bob can have a belief in something he has no concept of.

Now if you consider me a liar over the OP then you must also be a liar over your claim of my claiming victory.

 

[1137]

I'm aware of some of them. I'm certainly not aware of all of them. In the future, I'm confident that I'll hear arguments for gods that I haven't heard as of today. I'm still an atheist today, though.

I also recognize that true conclusions can have bad arguments, so I don't take the failure of an argument as a sign that the conclusion being argued is necessarily false. Why do you do this?

You don't need to know all the arguments, you need to understand the concepts involved.

 

[McBell]

I don't need to know every god concept, I just need to understand the concept of gods.

what is the "concept of gods"?

 

[Willamena]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concepts-god/

 

[McBell]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/concepts-god/

He specifically said he does not need to know all the god concepts that he only needs to know the concept of god.

 

[Willamena]

He specifically said he does not need to know all the god concepts that he only needs to know the concept of god.

Right. And he's right.

 

[McBell]

Right. And he's right.

then why are you presenting god concepts instead of the concept of god?

 

[Kuzcotopia]

One more small digression: high five on D&D!

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?



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?

.

I disagree with none of this.

But you have to understand the very first post I made that started this entire side conversation. . .and why I felt a little unhappy about the way the convo was going.

It's not about wanting to understand Christianity's mythology (or whatever dominate religion you find yourself it), it's about being forced to deal with it because there can be consequences if you say the wrong thing to offend the beliefs of others in RL.

Being an Atheist surrounded by Christians (or Muslims or Hindus or whomever) is really hard. . . There's a lot of us on these forums, but that's not true for many of us outside of them. I am alone, and whatever mythologies I might use to construct my own worldview are isolated from those I interact with daily.

I feel as if you aren't recognizing the difference between being curious about the mythology of a religion, and having to grimly and methodically learn about it, just to get along.

And let's face it, your no asking me to understand mythology in generals, your basically asking me to be respectful of the dominate mythology of folks who may see my own beliefs as an affront to their sense of morality. And suggesting you may be implying that what they do to construct their own worldview as religious folk is somehow essential to who they are as humans.

I am not speaking of you personally, but there are many people I work with every day who either insist or assume everyone around them share the "culture" of their religious beliefs, and conflate that belief as the most important facet of who they are.

I often feel a sense of tyranny from the dominate culture and religion that surround me. You may live in a freer corner of the world where religious discussion is all good times and noodle salad, but I do not live in that world.

I am respectful and curious about mythology, but you CANNOT normalize it the way you're doing, or expand its scope beyond its small role as a component of psychology, literature, or history . . .because if you do, you're essentially saying that what I deal with almost every day in RL is something that should be expected of me, and I just have to try harder.

Can you see where I'm coming from here?

Anyway, I am enjoying your responses, and I much appreciate the thoughtful replies. At one point, I thought about Cognative Narratology as a kind of religion, but ultimately thought it was mostly a silly idea. . . If you want to get past all the silliness of my posting history, I'm sure you'll find my thoughts on the matter (at least at the time).

P.S. To answer your question, what is the defining characteristic of humanity? I have no idea. . . Does it have to be just one thing, and do you think the answer would be the same for everyone?