Bob the atheist?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes.

Then I can only hope that you're more successful in future.

 

[Willamena]

Then I can only hope that you're more successful in future.

I hope I'm more successful with you, too.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Prove that there are gods a person doesn't know and I'll eat my hat.

i.e.

- prove that there are gods, and
- prove that a person doesn't know them?

If you think this has anything to do with what we've been talking about, then you've been having a very different conversation than the one we've been participating in.

People are not "ignorant of gods" (a spin on things), rather they know what gods they know, and those will determine what shape their atheism takes.

There are concepts and claims of gods. Any given person is ignorant of most of them.

 

[Willamena]

i.e.

- prove that there are gods, and
- prove that a person doesn't know them?

If you think this has anything to do with what we've been talking about, then you've been having a very different conversation than the one we've been participating in.

We've been talking about what gods a person is capable of believing in.

There are concepts and claims of gods. Any given person is ignorant of most of them.

To say that there are a vague "number" of gods that any given person is ignorant of is to assert an allegation.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We've been talking about what gods a person is capable of believing in.

Any gods that people have believed in, people are capable of believing in.

To say that there are a vague "number" of gods that any given person is ignorant of is to assert an allegation.

Sure, it's a claim... it just happens to be true.

For instance, before this thread, had you heard of Perkunas?

You say that you're an atheist, and you say that atheism involves rejecting belief in gods. Without googling him, can you tell me why you reject the god Tammuz?

 

[Willamena]

Any gods that people have believed in, people are capable of believing in.

But realistically.

Sure, it's a claim... it just happens to be true.

Are you honestly claiming that gods exist? or are you talking about something else?

For instance, before this thread, had you heard of Perkunas?

You say that you're an atheist, and you say that atheism involves rejecting belief in gods. Without googling him, can you tell me why you reject the god Tammuz?

I don't know Tammuz. That's rather the point, isn't it? I cannot reject something that I don't know. And to claim that atheism involves no rejection of gods it to eliminate those who do reject any or all gods.

 

[Bird123]

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)

This is the way I see it. We are all Spiritual beings in our true natures. Deep down, I think we all know this. Example: Look at the American Indian. They never had religion yet they knew of their Spirituality.

I think Atheists know this as well. I think most proclaim what they do simply because they protest religion, it's beliefs and concepts. For the rational person, they find that so much of religion simply does not add up.

I would say Bob is not an Atheist because he has nothing to protest not knowing what religion really is.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Only in a strictly and grossly ontological context. Athe-ism is an epistemological stance.

Interesting point. Both theism and atheism are views, and you can't have a view on something you don't know about.

 

[Willamena]

Interesting point. Both theism and atheism are views, and you can't have a view on something you don't know about.

While theists can't help but be the epistemological view, atheists seem to be steering towards being the ontological view.

Sad.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

While theists can't help but be the epistemological view, atheists seem to be steering towards being the ontological view.

I agree it is about views and beliefs, rather than about ontology.

 

[LuisDantas]

you did read my previous post?

Yes, I did.

and understand there can be consequence for declaration
or the lack thereof...................?

Something regarding my supposed afterlife, you mean?

Of course I see no possible link there. Apparently you mean one to be there. I have no idea why.

 

[LuisDantas]

While theists can't help but be the epistemological view, atheists seem to be steering towards being the ontological view.

Sad.

Epistemology deals with existence and rationality of belief, while ontology is about the nature and classification of knowledge, if I am not mistaken (I probably am to some extent, but that is where I stand right now, my starting point).

By that perspective, I am not sure it is so much sad as it is unavoidable, at least until theism matures (perhaps into obsolescence and self-extinction). Theism defines itself as a function of way too vague a term.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are you honestly claiming that gods exist? or are you talking about something else?

I have no idea why you would think that I'm claiming that gods exist.

My point was that there are countless god concepts.

I don't know Tammuz. That's rather the point, isn't it? I cannot reject something that I don't know.

Yes - that's my point. An atheist might not have heard of Tammuz, Perkunas, or any of the countless many gods that humanity has believed in, so they certainly haven't rejected these gods. Nevertheless, the person is still an atheist as long as he doesn't accept any gods.

And to claim that atheism involves no rejection of gods it to eliminate those who do reject any or all gods.

I have never said that atheism "involves no rejection of gods." An atheist can reject as many gods as he sees fit and still be an atheist.

 

[Augustus]

Yes - that's my point. An atheist might not have heard of Tammuz, Perkunas, or any of the countless many gods that humanity has believed in, so they certainly haven't rejected these gods. Nevertheless, the person is still an atheist as long as he doesn't accept any gods.

Do you think there is anybody who hasn't heard of Perkunas, yet believes in Perkunas?

If not, how is he supposed to affect any individual's epistemic position that they disbelieve in the existence of gods?

If it doesn't affect any individual's epistemic position that they disbelieve in the existence of gods, why is it in any way relevant?

You disbelieve in the gods you know about and you don't believe in the gods you don't know about, ergo you disbelieve in gods. How is the statement 'I disbelieve in gods' rendered false by people bringing up examples of obscure gods you don't believe in? You can name 1 million gods I don't believe in and it makes absolutely no difference to my disbelief in gods.

 

[Thief]

Yes, I did.


Something regarding my supposed afterlife, you mean?

Of course I see no possible link there. Apparently you mean one to be there. I have no idea why.

as much as I assume a life after death....
you seem stubborn to believe death is......final

and I believe .....your frame of mind could make all the difference

 

[Thief]

I was always the atheist who believes in god.

Just not your god.

and pray tell.....

 

[LuisDantas]

as much as I assume a life after death....
you seem stubborn to believe death is......final

Is it stubborness to acknowledge the facts?

and I believe .....your frame of mind could make all the difference

Not my problem, truth be told.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you think there is anybody who hasn't heard of Perkunas, yet believes in Perkunas?

If not, how is he supposed to affect any individual's epistemic position that they disbelieve in the existence of gods?

The category "gods" includes Perkunas. If by "disbelieve in the existence of gods", you mean disbelieving in gods as a category (i.e. not just "disbelieving in at least two gods"), then unless you reject Perkunas - either specifically or by rejecting some set of gods that includes Perkunas - then you haven't rejected "gods" as a category.

Keep in mind that Perkunas is just one example. We could repeat this excercise for god after god to create a huge set of gods any given person isn't even aware of (and therefore isn't even in a position to reject them).

If it doesn't affect any individual's epistemic position that they disbelieve in the existence of gods, why is it in any way relevant?

You're joking, right? You don't see how the fact that nobody has ever disbelieved in the vast majority of humanity's gods at a time has relevance on whether someone might have rejected gods?

You disbelieve in the gods you know about and you don't believe in the gods you don't know about, ergo you disbelieve in gods.

Are you counting ignorance as a type of disbelief?

How is the statement 'I disbelieve in gods' rendered false by people bringing up examples of obscure gods you don't believe in?

Because every god you aren't aware of is an example of a god you haven't disbelieved in. The statement "I disbelieve in gods" is only as true as the statement "I disbelieve in (insert name of god)" for the god you disbelieve in least.

You can name 1 million gods I don't believe in and it makes absolutely no difference to my disbelief in gods.

It seems like you're assuming that every person has a bizarre definition of "god" that includes the notion that only gods that the person is familiar with qualify as gods. Why?

It bugs me when people create special word usages that apply only to gods and religion. Say I said "I disbelieve in living coelacanths." What would this mean?

- I think that all coelacanths are dead, even the ones I'm not personally aware of.

- I only believe that the coelacanths I'm aware of are dead, and I have no opinion about any coelacanths that might be beyond my awareness at the bottom of the ocean.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Have guys ever seen so many debates about prefixes and word usage in your entire life?

"Next up on ReligiousForums, a talk about whether or not irreligion is an absence of religion or a direct opposition to it..."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Have guys ever seen so many debates about prefixes and word usage in your entire life?

"Next up on ReligiousForums, a talk about whether or not irreligion is an absence of religion or a direct opposition to it..."

From my perspective, the debate is about trying to dictate word choice that implies that irrationality is somehow built into atheism.