Bob the atheist?

[McBell]

so.....use the word on anything at all....
ignore the definition

and that works for you?

Works for you.
Why can't ignoring definitions work for others?

 

[Jumi]

I'm not the one trying to suggest that an atheist is a fool, you guys actually are. Apparently atheists can be equated to ignorant humans or even babies, since that's all the position requires.

That's as much atheism requires. That's how I held the position anyway. No experience of God, no accepting of any theological position. It wasn't complicated really, yet people often thought that my position was somehow complex. It was just naturally arising.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Given that a need for myth is the defining characteristic of humanity that separates us from other animals, I doubt it only applies to me.

I disagree.

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).

By myth I really mean a fiction, a story not objectively true that helps us understand and gives meaning to the world we live in. I don't just mean people with magic hammers and talking snakes.

Religions are full of myths of course, but then again, so are all ideologies be they nationalism, humanism, communism or even unnamed worldviews that have only a single adherent.

If you want to move the goalposts and widen your definition of mythology to include impacts on essentially every ideology and idea that humans have ever had, go for it.

But you're stripping the term "mythology" of any real meaning to make your argument here, so I'm not sure I see the point.

 

[Quintessence]

If you want to move the goalposts and widen your definition of mythology to include impacts on essentially every ideology and idea that humans have ever had, go for it.

But you're stripping the term "mythology" of any real meaning to make your argument here, so I'm not sure I see the point.

He's really not. He's understanding the term as it is understood by academics who study these things, as opposed to the non-scholarly masses. The understanding most folks have of mythos is, unfortunately, rather limited. Maybe take a gander at Karen Armstrong's "A Short History of Myth" or works by Joseph Campbell if you're interested in exploring this more? There are probably better references out there too in cultural anthropology and the like... but I have only a cursory familiarity with that myself so I don't have many recommendations for you.

 

[viole]

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)

Since there must have been a first theist who, by necessity, never heard of Gods before, the question is unanswearable. If people were atheists based on the sole fact that they never heard of god, everybody would be an atheist. Since not everybody is an atheist, the premise must be flawed.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Kuzcotopia]

He's really not. He's understanding the term as it is understood by academics who study these things, as opposed to the non-scholarly masses. The understanding most folks have of mythos is, unfortunately, rather limited. Maybe take a gander at Karen Armstrong's "A Short History of Myth" or works by Joseph Campbell if you're interested in exploring this more? There are probably better references out there too in cultural anthropology and the like... but I have only a cursory familiarity with that myself so I don't have many recommendations for you.

Thanks for the recommendations. ItMa 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).

Also, when you say academics, you are referring to literature right?

And do you agree with the claim that myth is the all-emcompassing difference between humans and animals? Never mind, you probably do. . .

I don't think that about myths. That's all, and I'm not sure why that has to be controversial.

 

[idav]

My apologies, idav, I used (a)theism because I see the argument I presented as applying equally to both labels. That is to say, if we ignore self-identification and ascribe labels based on some particular standard of what theism or atheism looks like, one can call someone either of these regardless of the subject's familiarity with either of those terms or their meaning. Does what I wrote make a bit more sense with this clarification?

Yes that makes sense and I agree many will have different standards for defining which is a big part of the issue. Becomes an argument in symantics.

 

[Quintessence]

Thanks for the recommendations. ItMa 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).

Yeah, I hear you... though I'm cautious in ascribing things like hubris to the motives of the folks who do this. I think the main point Augustus (and often myself as well) like to get across is that we all have stories that we tell that inform how we understand our lives and the world around us. I like being mindful of that, because the stories we tell play a powerful role in shaping our identities as individuals and as cultures.

Also, when you say academics, you are referring to literature right?

Yeah. I run into it on and off when I find/make the time to dig into it here and there. Most recently, I ran into a number of paradigms for approaching mythology as summarized in a work about animism. It's on my mental list of something to look into more, but who knows when I will actually get to it. Guess I'm like you in that regard. Karen Armstrong's book is really short, though. Readable in an afternoon.

And do you agree with the claim that myth is the all-emcompassing difference between humans and animals? Never mind, you probably do. . .

I don't know. I'm weary of extreme language like "all-encompassing" and also weary of drawing lines between humans and other animals (it perpetuates the mythology of the Great Divide, which is a story I reject). But, as far as humans seem to know, humans are the only animals that tell stories. Then again, humans also are not very good at speaking Blue Jay or Red Oak, so how would we know that they don't have their own stories?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes.

Some people used rejection of God and others rejection of gods.

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

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.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Yeah, I hear you... though I'm cautious in ascribing things like hubris to the motives of the folks who do this. I think the main point Augustus (and often myself as well) like to get across is that we all have stories that we tell that inform how we understand our lives and the world around us. I like being mindful of that, because the stories we tell play a powerful role in shaping our identities as individuals and as cultures.



Yeah. I run into it on and off when I find/make the time to dig into it here and there. Most recently, I ran into a number of paradigms for approaching mythology as summarized in a work about animism. It's on my mental list of something to look into more, but who knows when I will actually get to it. Guess I'm like you in that regard. Karen Armstrong's book is really short, though. Readable in an afternoon.



I don't know. I'm weary of extreme language like "all-encompassing" and also weary of drawing lines between humans and other animals (it perpetuates the mythology of the Great Divide, which is a story I reject). But, as far as humans seem to know, humans are the only animals that tell stories. Then again, humans also are not very good at speaking Blue Jay or Red Oak, so how would we know that they don't have their own stories?

Thanks for your thoughtful response.

I also struggle with the "all-encompassing" language, which is why I felt the interaction requires further clarification on my part.

We're agreed that myth is an aspect of some parts of human psychology (which can be studied academically and secularly), but for me, myth is either a source of tension (when surrounded by Christians), or a source of fun (when writing, reading fiction, or playing D&D).

It's not the end all, which is why I struggled with the earlier comment from the other individual.

 

[Quintessence]

We're agreed that myth is an aspect of some parts of human psychology (which can be studied academically and secularly), but for me, myth is either a source of tension (when surrounded by Christians), or a source of fun (when writing, reading fiction, or playing D&D).

Yeah, the relationship and understanding many folks have to mythology today is a little strange. Armstrong talks about that in her short book, IIRC. I'll basically refer to something as mythos or mythology when it's a narrative that is more central in informing someone's thoughts and values. Which could, for some people, include parts of the sciences. That approach is what has been called "functionalist" I think, but not sure. But we're digressing from the OP a tad.

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

 

[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)

I feel we are lacking information on Bob to actually determine. I wonder if Bob has concept of Life and/or has ever expressed as much. If no to that, then plausibly atheist. Arguably Bob may be the only true atheist for he not just lacks belief, but is absent of it. Yet, part of how I see the thought experiment working, or being framed, is with conveying specific understandings we, in this thread, have about God and saying Bob is absent of that.

Lack is defined as: the state of being without or not having enough of something.
Bob is in a state of being without.
Unless I'm mistaken, all self proclaimed atheists in this thread are (or will) claim they do not have enough evidence (or perhaps any evidence) to hold a belief in God. So, they are with the conception, but without the evidence. Not true for Bob.

And I'd be arguing that both Bob and atheists of this thread have the evidence, but may (or may not be) conceiving of that as evidence for God. Because I can anticipate some responses to that argument and generally enjoy the debate, I'd rather have others chime in who care to have the debate. But let's be clear that all who enter this thread have conception of God/gods, while Bob does not.

I bet some of you all would love to be like Bob. Too bad.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Unless I'm mistaken, all self proclaimed atheists in this thread are (or will) claim they do not have enough evidence (or perhaps any evidence) to hold a belief in God. So, they are with the conception, but without the evidence.

But let's be clear that all who enter this thread have conception of God/gods, while Bob does not.

You're mistaken.

Speaking for myself, I don't have an overall conception of "god". I have separate conceptions of individual gods, but I see no way to combine them into one coherent overall concept. I also have no conception of the gods I've never heard of.

What I do have is the realization that if I have not conceived of a thing, I can't possibly believe in it, so those other god-concepts are irrelevant to whether I'm an atheist.

 

[Acim]

Well, this thread couldn't have gone any better. The light is shining right on the dishonesty and ignorance I was aiming it at.

In conclusion, I think the reason that there is such a clear cut divide here is that theists need atheists more than the converse. Defining 'atheist' as simply being unconvinced rather than being in denial takes some punching power away from some specific superstitious belief(or all gawd beliefs in general). When the entire substance of a thing is composed of blind faith, every little shred of legitimization helps.

Blind faith - you mean like belief that you have a self in a physical existence? That kind of blind faith? Cause every little shred of legitimization helps here (as well).

 

[Acim]

You're mistaken.

Speaking for myself, I don't have an overall conception of "god". I have separate conceptions of individual gods, but I see no way to combine them into one coherent overall concept. I also have no conception of the gods I've never heard of.

You have separate conceptions. Bob does not.
Thus not mistaken.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You have separate conceptions. Bob does not.
Thus not mistaken.

I meant that you're mistaken about the thing where you said "unless I'm mistaken":

Unless I'm mistaken, all self proclaimed atheists in this thread are (or will) claim they do not have enough evidence (or perhaps any evidence) to hold a belief in God. So, they are with the conception, but without the evidence.

I do not have a conception of God.

Can you describe the "conception of God" you refer to?

 

[Willamena]

That is an unnecessary and misleading premise for one to take, though.

Not really. It's a natural and familiar take.

 

[1137]

Rejecting arguments that you haven't even heard is not the mark of a "philosophical thinker".

Yeah exactly. That's my point? So are atheists comparable to babies or philosophical thinkers?

 

[LuisDantas]

Not really. It's a natural and familiar take.

I honestly have to wonder how you came to such a conclusion. It is not at all obvious.

 

[1137]

That's as much atheism requires. That's how I held the position anyway. No experience of God, no accepting of any theological position. It wasn't complicated really, yet people often thought that my position was somehow complex. It was just naturally arising.

OK then we need to differentiate between "I'm an atheist for based on reason and evidence", and "I'm an atheist because I have the intelligence and knowledge of a baby or rock."