Bob the atheist?

[Guy Threepwood]

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'd say no, for the same rationale that if Bob had never heard any materialist/ naturalist/ atheist theory for our existence - that wouldn't make him a theist by default either.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

I don't think you understand what I'm saying to you.

Defining atheism in terms of rejection of gods means rejecting even the gods you've never heard of.

Do you think it's reasonable to reject a claim before you hear it?

 

[Acim]

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


I do not have a conception of God.

You do not have a general notion or abstract idea about God? Or gods?
I actually lack a belief in your assertion.

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

Yes. I believe you can as well.
I'd be glad to search your posts and identify whether you've ever expressed any conceptions about God/gods. Shall I proceed?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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."

You could try talking to atheists and asking them why they hold the views they do.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You do not have a general notion or abstract idea about God? Or gods?
I actually lack a belief in your assertion.

That's right: I don't. I know of specific cases of gods, but as far as combining them into a coherent overall concept... I can't do it. In fact, I think it can't be done.

Yes. I believe you can as well.
I'd be glad to search your posts and identify whether you've ever expressed any conceptions about God/gods. Shall I proceed?

If you can't answer my question, then how you spend your time is up to you.

Tell me more about this conception of "god" that you have. In particular, I'd like to know how you resolve this problem:

- the heavenly messenger Gabriel is NOT a god.
- the heavenly messenger Mercury IS a god.

How did your concept of "god" deal with this problem?

 

[Willamena]

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

I come to such a conclusion because absent literally means "not present."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'd say no, for the same rationale that if Bob had never heard any materialist/ naturalist/ atheist theory for our existence - that wouldn't make him a theist by default either.

By the same token, we shouldn't consider you a monotheist, right? After all, you have no opinion on all the gods you've never heard of.

Would it be fair to describe your position on gods as "accepted one, rejected some, on the fence about many"?

 

[LuisDantas]

I come to such a conclusion because absent literally means "not present."

Interestingly, I come to an incompatible conclusion by the same way.

 

[Acim]

That's right: I don't. I know of specific cases of gods, but as far as combining them into a coherent overall concept... I can't do it. In fact, I think it can't be done.

That's fine. But you admittedly know of specific cases of gods, whereas Bob (the true atheist) does not.

If you can't answer my question, then how you spend your time is up to you.

Tell me more about this conception of "god" that you have.

Okay, I'll read through your posts where you mention God/gods (something Bob has never done) and share your conceptions.

does monarchy *depend* on God or gods for legitimacy? Is there any way to justify a hereditary dynasty of rulers that doesn't involve God bestowing authority on the individual at the top of the family tree?

Bob would never ask this question, for Bob doesn't even conceive of the notion that God may bestow authority on individuals.

Now... to relate this to gods: the term "god" is tricky to define, but virtually all of the definitions I've heard of include criteria for what is and isn't a god (e.g. a god is great in some way, or powerful, or worshipped by humans).

You've heard definitions (plural) of god/gods. Bob has not. Bob doesn't have any conception of God as great, or powerful, or worshipped by humans. You apparently do have conception of this.

Shall I go on?

In particular, I'd like to know how you resolve this problem:

- the heavenly messenger Gabriel is NOT a god.
- the heavenly messenger Mercury IS a god.

How did your concept of "god" deal with this problem?

My theological understanding is that it is all God, and these beings are both extensions of God.

 

[McBell]

wth is a "true" atheist?

 

[1137]

I don't think you understand what I'm saying to you.

Defining atheism in terms of rejection of gods means rejecting even the gods you've never heard of.

Do you think it's reasonable to reject a claim before you hear it?

How could you reject something you're unaware of? Is this really where modern atheism is heading?

 

[1137]

You could try talking to atheists and asking them why they hold the views they do.

And you really expect them to say they're atheists because "I'm as ignorant on theism as a baby?" Quite compelling but explains quite a lot about your and my interactions!

 

[McBell]

And you really expect them to say they're atheists because "I'm as ignorant on theism as a baby?" Quite compelling but explains quite a lot about your and my interactions!

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....

 

[Willamena]

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.

If they believe in any god(s) they can't be called atheist, regardless that they reject God. The positive case is the primary descriptor.

The world (described) is fundamentally positive.

 

[Acim]

wth is a "true" atheist?

I use it rhetorically to describe individuals who are truly absent of a belief/conception in god(s).

See post #152 for perhaps more helpful information.

As the thought experiment is based on conception and we are made to answer for Bob's theism, or lack thereof, I'm tackling it from that angle as it relates to claims along lines of atheism equals lack of belief in god(s). Cause we really don't know what Bob believes.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My theological understanding is that it is all God, and these beings are both extensions of God.

So you don't have room for anything other than pantheism?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How could you reject something you're unaware of?

Exactly.

Is this really where modern atheism is heading?

It is if you have your way.

 

[Acim]

So you don't have room for anything other than pantheism?

I'm closer to being a Gnostic Monotheist. It makes plenty of room for pantheism, but isn't actually aligned with that, fundamentally.

 

[McBell]

Cause we really don't know what Bob believes.

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

We also know he does not reject gods, because he has no concept of gods.

Thus in my opinion making him a "pure" atheist.

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

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If they believe in any god(s) they can't be called atheist, regardless that they reject God. The positive case is the primary descriptor.

The world (described) is fundamentally positive.

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.