Extremes of Atheism vs Theism

[Willamena]

Yes. This is what I am saying.

Okay. As long as truth is binary, I'm good.

 

[Windwalker]

Okay. As long as truth is binary, I'm good.

But it gets complex after that. Especial when you're able to see and hold multiple perspectives at the same time. The term for that is aperspectival. In an integral asperspectival approach no one perspective is privileged, which allows for a holistic view. So if anything I am aiming at is to loosen hold on single perspectives, and its resultant binary thinking.

 

[Willamena]

But it gets complex after that. Especial when you're able to see and hold multiple perspectives at the same time. The term for that is aperspectival. In an integral asperspectival approach no one perspective is privileged, which allows for a holistic view.

As truth is always binary, it's never complex.

Yes or no. True of false. 1 or 0.

 

[Windwalker]

As truth is always binary, it's never complex.

Yes or no. True of false. 1 or 0.

Maybe complex isn't the right word. Maybe creative is. Maybe fluid it. Maybe dynamic is. Those are terms I find more to the point. Truth is dynamic. And the more perspectives you can hold, the greater the nature of truth itself is known.

 

[Willamena]

Maybe complex isn't the right word. Maybe creative is. Maybe fluid it. Maybe dynamic is. Those are terms I find more to the point. Truth is dynamic. And the more perspectives you can hold, the greater the nature of truth itself is known.

Maybe complicated. People complicate truth a lot more than it has to be. It's the simplest thing in the world.

 

[idav]

What does that have to do with atheism again?

You seem to be implying that atheism somehow must attempt to answer that question. I just fail to see why it should.

Heck, it is not even a particularly important question for theists.

If the question isn't important then one would not answer either way. By answering as atheist, a person is denying one or all theistic concepts. So in that respect the questions that theists use as an answer should be answered by the atheist as well since they are denying the theist answer as valid.

I understand the lack of belief concept but once someone answers atheism with any sort of intelligence then they are rejecting theistic concepts.

edit: so when theists have a list of god did this and god did that, the atheist would say no something else did this and that, rather than just reject the theists answer

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If the question isn't important then one would not answer either way. By answering as atheist, a person is denying one or all theistic concepts. So in that respect the questions that theists use as an answer should be answered by the atheist as well since they are denying the theist answer as valid.

I understand the lack of belief concept but once someone answers atheism with any sort of intelligence then they are rejecting theistic concepts.

edit: so when theists have a list of god did this and god did that, the atheist would say no something else did this and that, rather than just reject the theists answer

Not necessarily. There's an analogy that I like for this:

Say there's a big jar filled with jelly beans. You say to me "I'm certain that there's an even number of jelly beans in this jar."

If I think about this a bit and conclude that you had no way to accurately count all the jelly beans, I would be justified in saying "I don't believe you." In that case, I wouldn't have concluded that there must be an odd number of jelly beans in the jar; I would've only concluded that your conclusion was unfounded.

Of course, if I had somehow counted or estimated the jelly beans and decided that the number was odd, this could also be a reason to say "I don't believe you", but merely saying "I don't believe you" doesn't necessarily imply that I've decided your conclusion is false.

 

[Willamena]

Not necessarily. There's an analogy that I like for this:

Say there's a big jar filled with jelly beans. You say to me "I'm certain that there's an even number of jelly beans in this jar."

If I think about this a bit and conclude that you had no way to accurately count all the jelly beans, I would be justified in saying "I don't believe you." In that case, I wouldn't have concluded that there must be an odd number of jelly beans in the jar; I would've only concluded that your conclusion was unfounded.

An exellent example of skepticism.

 

[ArtieE]

If the question isn't important then one would not answer either way. By answering as atheist, a person is denying one or all theistic concepts. So in that respect the questions that theists use as an answer should be answered by the atheist as well since they are denying the theist answer as valid.

I understand the lack of belief concept but once someone answers atheism with any sort of intelligence then they are rejecting theistic concepts.

edit: so when theists have a list of god did this and god did that, the atheist would say no something else did this and that, rather than just reject the theists answer

The atheist doesn't reject the theists answer, he simply has different answers not involving gods. You start off with a list of many possible answers from which a theist picks some god and an atheist doesn't.

 

[Windwalker]

Maybe complicated. People complicate truth a lot more than it has to be. It's the simplest thing in the world.

Well, this is very true. Coming to that simplicity is complex. And on the one hand, unnecessarily so. On the other, necessarily so. We in effect have to learn, then unlearn. It's part of the process moving from an undifferentiated fusion with Truth, to a differentiated relative truth, to unitive realization where we return to simplicity, but with the fullness of self-awareness intact.

In the meantime, we do all these exercises.

 

[LuisDantas]

If the question isn't important then one would not answer either way.

People answer unimportant questions all the time, consciously or otherwise.

By answering as atheist, a person is denying one or all theistic concepts. So in that respect the questions that theists use as an answer should be answered by the atheist as well since they are denying the theist answer as valid.

How does that work? There is no good reason to expect that, none that I can see. Atheists have no duty nor need whatsoever to agree on the answer nor on its importance, nor on the need to have an alternate answer.

I suppose it is a bit unconfortable, even odd, for some theists to see their answers challenged without a true alternative presented. But that is all that it is. Lack of confort, not of coherence.

I understand the lack of belief concept but once someone answers atheism with any sort of intelligence then they are rejecting theistic concepts.

Yep.

edit: so when theists have a list of god did this and god did that, the atheist would say no something else did this and that, rather than just reject the theists answer

Why?

 

[idav]

Not necessarily. There's an analogy that I like for this:

Say there's a big jar filled with jelly beans. You say to me "I'm certain that there's an even number of jelly beans in this jar."

If I think about this a bit and conclude that you had no way to accurately count all the jelly beans, I would be justified in saying "I don't believe you." In that case, I wouldn't have concluded that there must be an odd number of jelly beans in the jar; I would've only concluded that your conclusion was unfounded.

Of course, if I had somehow counted or estimated the jelly beans and decided that the number was odd, this could also be a reason to say "I don't believe you", but merely saying "I don't believe you" doesn't necessarily imply that I've decided your conclusion is false.

This is another version of absence of belief. Saying to a person, "I don't believe you" means that the person hasn't necessarily made a claim of their own. However as soon as theists claims are rejected then they are saying "god didn't do it" so they must have an alternative explanation.

 

[ArtieE]

This is another version of absence of belief. Saying to a person, "I don't believe you" means that the person hasn't necessarily made a claim of their own. However as soon as theists claims are rejected then they are saying "god didn't do it" so they must have an alternative explanation.

Theists claims aren't rejected. Of a list of say 10 explanations the theist picks one with some god the atheist doesn't simply because he doesn't have a belief in gods.

 

[nilsz]

A dice rolls beyond sight...

"The dice landed on six."

"How do you know?"

"It must have."

"I don't think it landed on six."

"No? Well then you must have a different idea of what it landed upon."

 

[LuisDantas]

This is another version of absence of belief. Saying to a person, "I don't believe you" means that the person hasn't necessarily made a claim of their own. However as soon as theists claims are rejected then they are saying "god didn't do it" so they must have an alternative explanation.

No, they do not. Let me take a variation of Penguin's example:

Imagine a jar of beans that is just way too big to count at a glance. Someone proposes that there are four beans in it. Someone else disbelieves.

There is no need to know how many there are in fact.

 

[idav]

No, they do not. Let me take a variation of Penguin's example:

Imagine a jar of beans that is just way too big to count at a glance. Someone proposes that there are four beans in it. Someone else disbelieves.

There is no need to know how many there are in fact.

I guess rejecting the answer doesn't tell us whether the rejecter is going to give a guess themselves. There is a difference between saying the answer isn't possible vs outright rejecting the answer

 

[nilsz]

Sometimes, the correct answer is "I do not know."

 

[Alceste]

I guess rejecting the answer doesn't tell us whether the rejecter is going to give a guess themselves. There is a difference between saying the answer isn't possible vs outright rejecting the answer

No, there is no difference. If I tell you your answer is impossible, I have rejected it outright.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

4 years on the RF and I'm clearly ignorant or clearly dishonest.

If you're making the blanket contention that atheists are critical of anything theistic, then yes, you've either read posts by atheists on rf over the years which show the ways they are not critical of theism, thereby making you dishonest; or you haven't read much of what atheists have posted on rf, making you ignorant of the actual range of their opinions and views on various theistic subjects.

Hmmm, tough choice.

An easier choice might be to not make unsupportable blanket statements in the future.

You not being critical are you?

I'm quite clearly being critical. Of course, my criticism has nothing to do with theism, so whatever strawman you're attempting to build here has already burned to the ground. If you're going to attempt to use logical fallacies, at least try to make them somewhat appear related to the point at hand.

 

[idav]

No, there is no difference. If I tell you your answer is impossible, I have rejected it outright.

The difference is in reserving ones opinion rather than rejecting or accepting.