Bob the atheist?

[jonathan180iq]

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

I get that - and I've seen it implied many times. But it's such a weak argument that I don't see really a reason in even addressing it. (I say that as someone who engages with creationists all the time because it's easy to pick low-hanging fruit...)

Factually, non-belief goes hand in hand with ignorance. There's really no denying that. You can't believe in something that you don't know about.
If those that you speak of fail to realize the similarities and differences between non-belief and active disbelief, that's their problem - not ours.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If those that you speak of fail to realize the similarities and differences between non-belief and active disbelief, that's their problem - not ours.

... until discussions with theists about whether their beliefs are justified end up in burden-shifting tangents.

FWIW, I have similar problems with the terms "weak atheist" and "strong atheist". Often, it leads to this idea that an atheist is either entirely "weak" (and therefore holds no opinions about gods at all) or entirely "strong" (and therefore has certainty about the non-existence of gods well beyond what's supported by evidence and reason). It leaves no room for a middle-of-the-road atheist position that, IMO, describes most atheists with regard to mainstream god-concepts (e.g. "while I can't be perfectly certain that your god absolutely doesn't exist, I feel that the evidence is good enough to dismiss your belief as unjustified and to treat your god as so unlikely that I don't need to worry about it").

 

[jonathan180iq]

... until discussions with theists about whether their beliefs are justified end up in burden-shifting tangents.

That's just an argument about burden of proof though, isn't it? People either understand the rules of debate or they don't. It can be fun to just stoop down and give them what they want at times, eventually highlighting the failure of their intellectual defense mechanism, but mostly we just have to move on and know that they are attempting to cover up what they recognize as failures of their own ideology.

FWIW, I have similar problems with the terms "weak atheist" and "strong atheist". Often, it leads to this idea that an atheist is either entirely "weak" (and therefore holds no opinions about gods at all) or entirely "strong" (and therefore has certainty about the non-existence of gods well beyond what's supported by evidence and reason). It leaves no room for a middle-of-the-road atheist position that, IMO, describes most atheists with regard to mainstream god-concepts (e.g. "while I can't be perfectly certain that your god absolutely doesn't exist, I feel that the evidence is good enough to dismiss your belief as unjustified and to treat your god as so unlikely that I don't need to worry about it").

I agree. That's why I don't use those terms.

It's fun, I think, to pick a position that's unpopular and argue from it - like absolute knowledge that gods don't exist - or showing how even a "weak" atheistic position can decimate most theistic claims - but for the most part simply sticking to the facts takes care of most of these issues. It's not our job to always ensure that the people we are talking to understand the concepts that are being discussed. We can't make people think logically about topics when they're coming into them from wholly illogical stances, you know what I mean?

I poke holes in assertions solely in attempts of getting people to question their own answers. If I ever do so much as that, then I'm satisfied with a conversation, even those that are wildly pedantic and repetitive... (here's looking at you, everyone in the thread...)

 

[Thief]

God did it.....all of it.....

 

[jonathan180iq]

God did it.....all of it.....

Nope. It was Cheonjiwang.

Do you believe in Cheonjiwang?

 

[jeager106]

God did nothing.
Allah did nothing.
It was ALL ANCIENT ALIENS!
http://www.history.com/shows/ancient-aliens

Ancient Aliens are responsible for ships and aircraft disappearing.
And for the stock market crash.
And for WWI.
And WWII
And different religions worldwide.
And for Radical Islam.
And for Radical Christianity.
And for............................................zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Thief]

call God any name you want .....if you dare....

Someone had to be first
and substance won't move without a push

Spirit first

 

[jonathan180iq]

call God any name you want .....if you dare....

Someone had to be first
and substance won't move without a push

Spirit first

Cool.

Do you believe in Cheonjiwang?

Does anyone here believe in Cheonjiwang??

 

[jonathan180iq]

..if you dare....

Also

 

[Willamena]

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.

Not accepting is rejecting.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not accepting is rejecting.

No, it isn't.

 

[Augustus]

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).

Yes, you reject a category that includes Perkunas. That category is whatever you want it to be because it's your belief.

IMO, Perkunas fits into the god category Humans/animals +, they are basically characters with superhuman powers who influence the lives of humans. I don't believe in any of them.

I also don't believe in the supernatural, and gods, IMO, must necessarily be supernatural. So I disbelieve in all gods.

This is totally irrelevant though as there is no requirement to have to rationalise a belief to prove that you do or do not believe it. It is not an academic thesis, but a personal, subjective epistemic position that requires absolutely no rationalisation or justification external to the mind.

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?

When you say "I believe...", your statement of belief is not negated in any way by someone pointing out "But, someone else believes..."

Are you counting ignorance as a type of disbelief?

I'm counting my beliefs as being representative of my beliefs. I'm not sure what else should be included when representing my beliefs other than my beliefs.

You seem to think my beliefs are to some extent contingent on other people's beliefs in order for them to count as my beliefs.

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 have ideas of what you believe are gods, and if you don't believe in anything that fits into these ideas then you disbelieve 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?

Only things that I believe are gods count as gods in relation to what I believe are gods. What other people unknown to me believe are gods has no effect on what I believe are gods at this point in time.

We are talking about belief, specifically my belief.

You are basically arguing that my beliefs don't count as being representative of my beliefs if someone 10,000 years ago held a belief that is different to my beliefs.

 

[McBell]

No, it isn't.

Seems this littele post here is what so many people have problems understanding.

 

[Willamena]

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).

I don't have to reject every single Sasquatch to reject Sasquatches.

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.

It's absurd, though, to think you can disbelieve in gods you've never heard of, any more than you could believe in gods you've never heard of.

It's all about you (the conscious entity) and your capacity to believe, which is limited by the amount of information available to you.

 

[Willamena]

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

That's my perspective, too.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Not accepting is rejecting.

Really?

So if someone tells you a story you immediately accept it as 100% true or reject it as 100% false?

Me, I would consider it 'possibly true ' and leave it at that pending further information.

 

[Willamena]

Really?

So if someone tells you a story you immediately accept it as 100% true or reject it as 100% false?

Me, I would consider it 'possibly true ' and leave it at that pending further information.

Belief is accepting as true. Disbelief is rejecting as true.

I don't automatically believe every story I read, else I'd be accepting what Mostly Penguin says instead of rejecting it.

Edit: I wouldn't consider it "possibly true," I'd consider it a narrative.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, you reject a category that includes Perkunas. That category is whatever you want it to be because it's your belief.

IMO, Perkunas fits into the god category Humans/animals +, they are basically characters with superhuman powers who influence the lives of humans. I don't believe in any of them.

I also don't believe in the supernatural, and gods, IMO, must necessarily be supernatural. So I disbelieve in all gods.

So to be an atheist, one has to reject all supernatural things?

Is there any room in your worldview for an atheist who believes in supernatural things, but not gods?

This is totally irrelevant though as there is no requirement to have to rationalise a belief to prove that you do or do not believe it. It is not an academic thesis, but a personal, subjective epistemic position that requires absolutely no rationalisation or justification external to the mind.

I'm not talking about "rationalizing" belief. I'm just pointing out that when someone says "I disbelieve in gods", they mean something by the word "gods".

... and it generally isn't "the gods I've heard of and none others."

When you say "I believe...", your statement of belief is not negated in any way by someone pointing out "But, someone else believes..."

When someone says "I believe no gods exist", however they define "god", generally people recognize that the term might apply to god-concepts they haven't heard of.

I'm counting my beliefs as being representative of my beliefs. I'm not sure what else should be included when representing my beliefs other than my beliefs.

You seem to think my beliefs are to some extent contingent on other people's beliefs in order for them to count as my beliefs.

No, I'm rejecting your assumption that people necessarily believe that their understanding of a thing defines the thing entirely.

Haven't you ever heard of "known unknowns"? A person can acknowledge the existence of a category without believing that their own experience is representative of the entire category.

You have ideas of what you believe are gods, and if you don't believe in anything that fits into these ideas then you disbelieve in gods.

"Don't believe" as in "lack belief in" or as in "reject"?

Only things that I believe are gods count as gods in relation to what I believe are gods. What other people unknown to me believe are gods has no effect on what I believe are gods at this point in time.

We are talking about belief, specifically my belief.

You are basically arguing that my beliefs don't count as being representative of my beliefs if someone 10,000 years ago held a belief that is different to my beliefs.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that whatever criteria you use to define "god", it would be very rare for someone to believe that only things that they're already familiar with might meet those criteria.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Belief is accepting as true. Disbelief is rejecting as true.

I don't automatically believe every story I read, else I'd be accepting what Mostly Penguin says instead of rejecting it.

There's a middle ground: neither believing nor disbelieving.

Do you need me to give you the jar of pennies analogy again?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't have to reject every single Sasquatch to reject Sasquatches.

Because you have a concept of sasquatches. Do you have a concept of gods?

It's absurd, though, to think you can disbelieve in gods you've never heard of, any more than you could believe in gods you've never heard of.

Quite right. That's why insisting on a definition of atheism as "disbelief in gods" implies that there are no real-world atheists, since no actual person could meet the qualification.

It's all about you (the conscious entity) and your capacity to believe, which is limited by the amount of information available to you.

So Bob's an atheist, then?