Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by BroJames:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
<snip>what of people like my mate Jim? He simply doesn't think about it at all. He doesn't have discourse about it. But as he doesn't believe in god, he is still technically an atheist.

---

Well I would only call him an atheist if he positively believes there is no god. If he simply doesn't happen to believe in (a) god, but does not per se exclude the possibility of (a) god - I wouldn't use the word 'atheist' do describe him or 'atheism' to describe his views.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
Truth is, when I've heard people explain why they believe in God, they don't talk about metaphysical realities grounded in observable reality. They talk about some scripture and their personal experience of their god.

---

quote:

---

So I don't accept that whether God exists is the difference in my life. I think it has about as much effect on me as whether or not Elvis is alive.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
This "don't-give-a-shit-ism" concerning God(s) is still a faith position because the "not-giving-shit" is about God, and not about something else.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
I'm sorry, Squibs, but your "desire to put people into nice, neat categories so you can more easily dismiss them" is showing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
I don't consider myself to be an atheist. But like you said (which was my point), you consider me so, just like you consider me to be a homo sapien even if I don't. But that's the problem, because then you've worked up a list of attributes that go with "atheist", faith positions, philosophical points of view, etc. that may or may not apply to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
So then, when I say, "I don't have any delusions that I've categorically disproven God, or that there is 'no evidence'," you scratch your head and ask, "Sorry, but what are you then? It might help me to understand."

It's a semantic hamster wheel.

You: Atheists are people who don't believe there is a god.
Me: Ok.
You: Do you believe there is a god?
Me: I haven't experienced much good evidence for it, no.
You: Aha! You're an atheist then.
Me: Maybe? I don't really know.
You: See, friends, he's an atheist. And atheists are x, y, and z.
Me: Wait, I'm not really x or z.
You: Oh yes you are, you're an atheist, remember?
Me: If that's what makes someone an atheist, than I guess I'm not one.
You: Well, wait a minute then. So you believe there is a god?
Me: Oh, well, I haven't experienced much good evidence for that, no.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
Ingo, your definition of "clear" is probably an obscured, philosophical one. Truth is, when I've heard people explain why they believe in God, they don't talk about metaphysical realities grounded in observable reality. They talk about some scripture and their personal experience of their god.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
No, you didn't, and it sort of seems like you're just deliberately ignoring the point, so I'll skip that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
I'm not sure I know what you mean, but maybe you're too concerned about being intellectual?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
You don't really mean "if God is alive", you mean "if God is alive and I'm right about everything that means".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
It made no difference whatsoever, so there really was just no point for me to keep pretending all those things, based on my experiences.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
This "don't-give-a-shit-ism" concerning God(s) is still a faith position because the "not-giving-shit" is about God, and not about something else.

---

I think this cuts to the root of the problem, and is why these discussions ultimately never get anywhere. It is the assumption that because the question relates to God it should be treated in a fundamentally different way to any other discussion. Most theists probably believe God is fundamentally different and their philosophical groundrules reflect that, but that does not give them universal validity and it is no reason why anyone else should also start from that position or be required to work within those groundrules. But that is what you seem to be demanding.

---

quote:

---

"Don't-give-a-shit-ism" is not a faith position. It may well be a "position regarding a faith" as long as position is not taken to imply the result of deliberation. It is not a faith position with the implication that it is a position reached by means of faith.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Squibs:
It is funny that you accuse me of all sort of things, yet you haven't bothered to answer my question. I'll ask again: what are you?

---

quote:

---

After cutting through the needless verbiage, it seems to me that you are still saying, "No, I don't believe in God."

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Hence belief in fairies and in God are not equivalent.

---

quote:

---

You cannot return to a state of childish ignorance and apathy about God. Just as one cannot "just not drink alcohol", after being a regular drinker. As a former drinker, you simply become a teetotaler by not drinking any alcohol (assuming of course that you could drink, if you wanted to). You may become a very low-key teetotaler, but you cannot undo your experience of drinking anymore.

---

quote:

---

No. Your only way of being easy about the possible existence of God is by assuming a certain theology, e.g., by making the assumption that God is distant and does not care anyhow what you do. But then you are actually a believer of sorts, namely in an "atheism-tolerant" god.

---

quote:

---

You cannot possibly be comfortable about the existence of a god as such, because among the many possibilities what a god could be like there are plenty that could make your (after-)life highly unpleasant.

---

quote:

---

If you do not say that, and nevertheless are comfortable about denying god, then you are either confused or in fact a believer (possibly a believer in something vague, but a believer nonetheless).

---

quote:

---

What are you talking about? You actually listed all the differences that it made, and you are acutely aware of having stopped with all that.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
If we have a case we can defend for saying God is not a religious fiction but a feature of our existence (its first cause) then of course we can ignore it. Like we can ignore the existence of Mars or Venus. But if we wish to think or talk about the solar system, it's handy to know the conventional labels for the local planets.

Equally, consideration of how or why we exist is likely to need a label for the first cause of existence, God by long-established convention. Whether that consideration makes consistent sense, and can therefore be practically useful, will depend among other factors on how closely the meaning we associate with the label reflects reality.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
At the point you're talking about, there's little to no relevance to my daily life coming from whether or not the first-cause of all existence is called God or Zorbuxx or STARTFORCE™.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Squibs:
It is funny that you accuse me of all sort of things, yet you haven't bothered to answer my question. I'll ask again: what are you?

---

I'm a who, actually. My name is Jason. I don't know how to answer your question any better than that. Sorry if that makes you angry.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
I'm a who, actually. My name is Jason. I don't know how to answer your question any better than that. Sorry if that makes you angry.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:This is a pretty good demonstration of what I mean. You want everything to be very simple and neatly aligned into nice boxes. Anything that adds complexity or subtlety to the conversation is "needless verbiage".

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
No more than he can say "There is no God." All he can really say is "I don't believe there is a God" to which the proper response is "that's nice. Who the fuck are you and why should your beliefs have anything to do with how I live my life?"

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by redderfreak:
I don't know how Richard Dawkins can say that there probably isn't a god, as if it's a scientific statement.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
No more than he can say "There is no God." All he can really say is "I don't believe there is a God" to which the proper response is "that's nice. Who the fuck are you and why should your beliefs have anything to do with how I live my life?"

---

I've found that it's usually those who believe in God who are much more active in telling other people how to live their lives.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
If I meet people who are arguing that belief in fairies is philosophically and morally equivalent in every way to belief in god(s), I'll be sure to send them your way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
You're still ignoring the point (willfully or not, I don't know) about action. The island example is about the irrelevance of a belief without effect. If I can't see any alcohol on the island, and you can't show me any, then why should I care about whether or not it's okay to drink?

---

quote:

---

1 Kings 19:11-13 (RSV-CE):
And he said, "Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the Lord." And behold, the Lord passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and broke in pieces the rocks before the Lord, but the Lord was not in the wind; and after the wind an earthquake, but the Lord was not in the earthquake; and after the earthquake a fire, but the Lord was not in the fire; and after the fire a still small voice. And when Elijah heard it, he wrapped his face in his mantle and went out and stood at the entrance of the cave. And behold, there came a voice to him, and said, "What are you doing here, Elijah?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
The assumption I'm making is that if a god exists and I should be doing something about that, it'll be clear to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
Aside: bringing it up like this just makes it so damn obvious what the point of the hell teaching is, doesn't it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
Like I said, whatever god exists, if they have demands, will make them clear. Some people will say, "But they're not demands, they're helpful pieces of advice about how to live life to the fullest." And I like that, except that I'm living live to fullerest I've ever lived in these last two years, so it's just not my experience.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
If and when someone discovers some alcohol, then let's talk about whether or not it's ok to drink it, and everything else that will lead to. Until then, I'm over here eating coconuts and not caring.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yonatan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by kankucho:
I haved coined the word 'SUMIST' - as in 'cogito ergo sum' to express a position which begins with a belief in the only thing one can be sure of - the self which holds the belief.

---

Isn't that a rather strange starting point for a Buddhist?

---

I think Buddhists can start anywhere - in fact, they have to start where they are, even if that leaves them with a concept of self that much modern science and philosophy is undercutting....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Originally posted by kankucho:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Atheists are keen to suggest that atheism is a "default position". But there is no neutral worldview - each is in equal need of being measured up to reality.

---

It ought to be a default position, but it isn't.

Atheists make the case that everyone is born with no intrinsic beliefs; beliefs are acquired from later social influences.

---

Some atheists make that case. Some atheists, e.g. Steven Pinker wrote a book, The Blank Slate, to refute the idea that we start as blank slates.
I suppose the claim is true in just the same sense that it's true that everyone is born with no intrinsic language; language is acquired from later social influences.

Saying atheism ought to be the default worldview is like saying that 'non-Indo-European language ought to be the default language'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Originally posted by kankucho:

quote:

---

I haved coined the word 'SUMIST' - as in 'cogito ergo sum' to express a position which begins with a belief in the only thing one can be sure of - the self which holds the belief.

---

I can't be sure of the self; neither can you. The self, defined as the only thing that one can be sure of, turns out on examination to be incoherent. It doesn't exist. The best you can do is something like Galen Strawson's idea that I am a different self now than the self that first read your post - and you, as you read this, are a completely different self from the 'kankucho' to whom I am replying. That's a shifting sand from which to start.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Your actual self - rather than the non-existent artifact of misguided philosophising that you're talking about - is grown as a result of later social influences. It's not a default.
(Of course, the concept of the artifact of misguided philosophising is also acquired from later social influences in a different sense.)

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Nichiren:
If you truly fear the sufferings of birth and death and yearn for nirvana, if you carry out your faith and thirst for the way, then the sufferings of change and impermanence will become no more than yesterday’s dream, and the awakening of enlightenment will become today’s reality.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by kankucho:
Sorry to butt in, but I've just revisited something I posted way back and subsequently forgot about. It seems to have attracted a few responses...

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yonatan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by kankucho:
I haved coined the word 'SUMIST' - as in 'cogito ergo sum' to express a position which begins with a belief in the only thing one can be sure of - the self which holds the belief.

---

Isn't that a rather strange starting point for a Buddhist?

---

I think Buddhists can start anywhere - in fact, they have to start where they are, even if that leaves them with a concept of self that much modern science and philosophy is undercutting....

---

Quite. If I didn't exist, there would be no ‘me’ to consider the truth of Buddhism. Though the idea of Buddhism being undercut by modern science and philosophy isn't something I recognise: quite the opposite, in fact.

-------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Originally posted by kankucho:

quote:

---

quote:

---

Atheists are keen to suggest that atheism is a "default position". But there is no neutral worldview - each is in equal need of being measured up to reality.

---

It ought to be a default position, but it isn't.

Atheists make the case that everyone is born with no intrinsic beliefs; beliefs are acquired from later social influences.

---

Some atheists make that case. Some atheists, e.g. Steven Pinker wrote a book, The Blank Slate, to refute the idea that we start as blank slates.
I suppose the claim is true in just the same sense that it's true that everyone is born with no intrinsic language; language is acquired from later social influences.

Saying atheism ought to be the default worldview is like saying that 'non-Indo-European language ought to be the default language'.

---

It isn't. It's like saying no language ought to be (nor is) the default. As you point out, language (all language) is acquired from later social influences. So it is also with belief systems.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Originally posted by kankucho:

quote:

---

I haved coined the word 'SUMIST' - as in 'cogito ergo sum' to express a position which begins with a belief in the only thing one can be sure of - the self which holds the belief.

---

I can't be sure of the self; neither can you. The self, defined as the only thing that one can be sure of, turns out on examination to be incoherent. It doesn't exist. The best you can do is something like Galen Strawson's idea that I am a different self now than the self that first read your post - and you, as you read this, are a completely different self from the 'kankucho' to whom I am replying. That's a shifting sand from which to start.

---

I cross the River Thames twice during every working day. The water I cross over is never the same stuff twice. Unfathomably huge amounts of molecules flow by each moment, and are constantly replaced by others. But, for all that, it is always the River Thames. And, whenever I cross it, it is always me that does so.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Your actual self - rather than the non-existent artifact of misguided philosophising that you're talking about - is grown as a result of later social influences. It's not a default.
(Of course, the concept of the artifact of misguided philosophising is also acquired from later social influences in a different sense.)

---

On the contrary: philosophy, misguided or otherwise, is just one among many ‘later social influences’. Everything I learn, all the philosophising I may do, and the influences to which I am subject, are like the ‘impermanent’ water constantly flowing through it. But my actual self is like the river. Always the river; always the central locus of consciousness (or ’ sum’, as my suggested expression would have it) which encounters and interacts with all this.

quote:

---

Originally written by Nichiren:
If you truly fear the sufferings of birth and death and yearn for nirvana, if you carry out your faith and thirst for the way, then the sufferings of change and impermanence will become no more than yesterday’s dream, and the awakening of enlightenment will become today’s reality.

---

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by kankucho:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Originally posted by kankucho:

quote:

---

Atheists make the case that everyone is born with no intrinsic beliefs; beliefs are acquired from later social influences.

---

Some atheists make that case. Some atheists, e.g. Steven Pinker wrote a book, The Blank Slate, to refute the idea that we start as blank slates.
I suppose the claim is true in just the same sense that it's true that everyone is born with no intrinsic language; language is acquired from later social influences.

Saying atheism ought to be the default worldview is like saying that 'non-Indo-European language ought to be the default language'.

---

It isn't. It's like saying no language ought to be (nor is) the default. As you point out, language (all language) is acquired from later social influences. So it is also with belief systems.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Originally posted by kankucho:

quote:

---

I haved coined the word 'SUMIST' - as in 'cogito ergo sum' to express a position which begins with a belief in the only thing one can be sure of - the self which holds the belief.

---

I can't be sure of the self; neither can you. The self, defined as the only thing that one can be sure of, turns out on examination to be incoherent. It doesn't exist. The best you can do is something like Galen Strawson's idea that I am a different self now than the self that first read your post - and you, as you read this, are a completely different self from the 'kankucho' to whom I am replying. That's a shifting sand from which to start.

---

I cross the River Thames twice during every working day. The water I cross over is never the same stuff twice. Unfathomably huge amounts of molecules flow by each moment, and are constantly replaced by others. But, for all that, it is always the River Thames.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Your actual self - rather than the non-existent artifact of misguided philosophising that you're talking about - is grown as a result of later social influences. It's not a default.
(Of course, the concept of the artifact of misguided philosophising is also acquired from later social influences in a different sense.)

---

On the contrary: philosophy, misguided or otherwise, is just one among many ‘later social influences’. Everything I learn, all the philosophising I may do, and the influences to which I am subject, are like the ‘impermanent’ water constantly flowing through it. But my actual self is like the river. Always the river; always the central locus of consciousness (or ’ sum’, as my suggested expression would have it) which encounters and interacts with all this.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally written by Nichiren:
If you truly fear the sufferings of birth and death and yearn for nirvana, if you carry out your faith and thirst for the way, then the sufferings of change and impermanence will become no more than yesterday’s dream, and the awakening of enlightenment will become today’s reality.

---

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by pimple:
Proselytizers will sometimes urge wannabe Christians to take "a leap of faith" - when reason doesn't provide adequate answers.

---

I disagree. That would be counter-productive, surely? It is only necessary to recommend that any supernatural belief be subjected to testing in order to see if it stands up to such scrutiny. Even if it does not, at this present time then it should not be attributed to God, but left under, 'We don't know' heading for now. A 'leap of faith' should not be one of the tests. I suppose it could be used as an argument: You ask me to take a leap of faith into belief in God, and I know how to do that as I was a believer, so put yourself in my position and see it from my point of view. This does of course mean that the final, very small indeed (I will refrain from saying 'vanishingly' possibility that a God exists has to remain in the picture. Since it has in fact been this way for millenia, then I definitely choose to discount it.

quote:

---

How sensible does that sound? How useful? I think I am now atheist, though I still use the now "foreign language" of religion to make a point from time to time. Some things just don't translate too well from one language to another.

---

quote:

---

I now think as an atheist. I don't feel "liberated" or frightened by this.

---

quote:

---

There will always be people who can achieve things that I cannot, and if some of those things are the useful, healthy, compassionate outcome of their religious beliefs, why should I not applaud them?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Apocalypso:
I wonder if it makes any difference to go at this question -- whether elements of something faith-like form part of atheism -- from a different angle.

---

quote:

---

Would most people who answer to "atheist" agree that they are materialists, at least in the sense of assuming that the universe consists solely of that which can be (or can eventually be) observed, sensed, tested, and/or measured?

---

quote:

---

Perhaps it's simply a way of stating that the universe is ultimately explicable.

---

quote:

---

The opposing view would seem to be that there's an "extra" component of the universe for those who believe in God,...

---

quote:

---

fairies, tree-sprites, etc., and that "extra" is the inexplicable (or singular, or anomalous). . . sorry. I like it here, but maybe I'm having trouble with the jargon.

---

quote:

---

Personally, I'm hung about midway between the two camps and can't reconcile. Camped at one end for several years; now sitting in t'other camp.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

As there are atheist belief systems, 'atheism ought not to be the default' does not mean 'no belief system ought to be the default'.
Also, what exactly does 'no language ought to be the default' mean? .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
If it means we shouldn't have prejudices against any language - no language should have a burden of justification, the equivalent is we shouldn't have prejudices against any belief system; belief systems don't need any initial justification.
If it means that we should reject all language until we are presented with a reason to adopt a particular language, then it's clearly ridiculous. .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

You defined the self as the one thing that you can be completely certain of.
The River Thames is nothing like such a thing. For example, are the Kennet, the Fleet, the Isis, the Medway part of the River Thames or not? If you came across the Isis as part of a random walk through England you would not be able immediately to recognise whether it was the same river as the Thames in London.

---

The river metaphor is just to indicate how something that is constantly changing can also be a constant entity. So it is with conscious life. In my fumbled attempt at editing the post, I added when I cross the Thames, it is always me doing the crossing. I’m carrying different experiences, possibly in a different frame of mind, but it’s most definitely me crossing the river. Also, at those times, the river itself is within my sphere of perception and, as such, becomes a part of me and my consciousness.
Whether I, as an observer, recognise a stretch of river as 'the Thames' doesn’t really matter, except when I need a convenient marker for finding Borough station. The Thames is what the Thames is. Most likely it doesn’t know it’s called the Thames; it just gets on with the business of flowing through London because that's where it is and that's what it does. 'Are the Kennet, the Fleet, the Isis, the Medway part of the River Thames?' That’s a good question. Of course, the boundaries are quite arbitrarily declared by entities outside of themselves. But, essentially, they're all parts of the same thing. You also offer, 'you can't distinguish between the water and the river'. That’s entirely true, IMO. The provisional, constantly changing, aspect is integral to the entity as a whole. Are you sure you're not a Buddhist at heart?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

You've made three propositions here.
1) You have an actual self, the central locus of consciousness.
2) The actual self is distinct from all the influences which it encounters and interacts with.
3) You can be completely certain of this actual self, and of nothing else.

The only thing of which you are ever directly aware is that learning, philosophising, and so on. If you define the self as the self that is aware of them, then by definition you're never aware of your self. You therefore have no direct evidence for this actual self, let alone that you have an actual self that is something other than, standing apart from, the experiences with which it interacts..... .

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

So, you believe in your actual self because of Nichiren? You acquired your belief in it because of the social influences of Nichiren's philosophy and other teachers?
(Not that the passage you quote seems to me to have anything to do with the idea of a self.) .

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
I think this cuts to the root of the problem, and is why these discussions ultimately never get anywhere. It is the assumption that because the question relates to God it should be treated in a fundamentally different way to any other discussion. Most theists probably believe God is fundamentally different and their philosophical groundrules reflect that, but that does not give them universal validity and it is no reason why anyone else should also start from that position or be required to work within those groundrules.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by redderfreak:
If atheists are right and there is no god, we'll never know. Because we'll be dead.

I don't know how Richard Dawkins can say that there probably isn't a god, as if it's a scientific statement. Does he mean that the probability that there is a god is only 32%, or something like that?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
One of the reasons I thought it was pitched exactly right was that it did not try to hit people over the head with the information, but provided an easy-to-remember slogan which also made people smile.

---

Posted                          

Redux. (Am I allowed to do this? )

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
So, you believe in your actual self because of Nichiren? You acquired your belief in it because of the social influences of Nichiren's philosophy and other teachers?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yonatan:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:
One of the reasons I thought it was pitched exactly right was that it did not try to hit people over the head with the information, but provided an easy-to-remember slogan which also made people smile.

---

The main reason I disliked it was its exclusivity and glibness which implied a distinct lack of compassion. "Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." is quite a bourgeois, 'first' world response.

---

quote:

---

Which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life? - Jesus of Nazareth

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:

---

Originally posted by redderfreak:
If atheists are right and there is no god, we'll never know. Because we'll be dead.

I don't know how Richard Dawkins can say that there probably isn't a god, as if it's a scientific statement. Does he mean that the probability that there is a god is only 32%, or something like that?

---

I was at a conference last October where Ariane Sherine was one of the speakers and she gave us the whole story of the campaign.

One of the reasons I thought it was pitched exactly right was that it did not try to hit people over the head with the information, but provided an easy-to-remember slogan which also made people smile.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by kankucho:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

As there are atheist belief systems, 'atheism ought not to be the default' does not mean 'no belief system ought to be the default'.
Also, what exactly does 'no language ought to be the default' mean?

---

So-called atheist belief systems, including that proposed by your Mr Pinker, are applied ways of perceiving the universe to be without gods. As such, they vie for space in the non-default intellect along with god-oriented beliefs. But a newly born child has no conception even of what gods are until it has learned some rudimentary language skills and is presented with a concept, usually by its closest kin. As such, the newly born consciousness is innately atheist (without gods).

---

quote:

---

'No language ought to be the default' means that it is nonsense to think that a child is born with a head full of a 'default' language. I'm not sure why you're objecting to this point. It was your own argument that 'language is acquired from later social influences'. I'm just agreeing with you. The same is true of externally locused beliefs.

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

You defined the self as the one thing that you can be completely certain of.
The River Thames is nothing like such a thing. For example, are the Kennet, the Fleet, the Isis, the Medway part of the River Thames or not? If you came across the Isis as part of a random walk through England you would not be able immediately to recognise whether it was the same river as the Thames in London.

---

The river metaphor is just to indicate how something that is constantly changing can also be a constant entity. So it is with conscious life. In my fumbled attempt at editing the post, I added when I cross the Thames, it is always me doing the crossing. I’m carrying different experiences, possibly in a different frame of mind, but it’s most definitely me crossing the river.

---

quote:

---

You also offer, 'you can't distinguish between the water and the river'. That’s entirely true, IMO. The provisional, constantly changing, aspect is integral to the entity as a whole. Are you sure you're not a Buddhist at heart?

---

Now that you say it, I do think I'm closer to being a Buddhist at heart than you are.

quote:

---

To No 3) Agreed. But I won't worry about that because I can't possibly be wrong in believing myself to exist. If I were, then I wouldn't be here to be wrong about it. Everything outside of a conscious entity being conscious of itself is an acquisition which we invest with varying degrees of reliability. That includes, God, Jesus, Nichiren and enough information about the Thames to get us to the Borough station every day.
Where would you suggest I go looking for indisputable evidence of myself, other than myself?

---

quote:

---

To my mind, which I happily confess has been strongly influenced by Nichiren, it is precisely the acquired, non-innate aspects of life which disappear at the time of physical death. The essential self only entertains such things for as long as manifest social and environmental existence lends them some purpose. I would have thought there would be some parallel to this in the Christian idea. Isn't it the essential self that's supposed to take its place Up There? The Hereafter is going to be a pretty unpleasant place if we're going take all our acquired social and psychological baggage with us – together with all that experience of ageing and sickness. Surely the new body promised in the Christian retirement home brochures comes complete with a free and unencumbered mind? (Remember how the water is indistinguishable from the river?).

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
If you're not interested in metaphysics then obviously you can just ignore such things. It means, though, that if others justify opinions about morality or whatever by reference to their understanding of God, you have no basis for dialogue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Squibs:
I was initially talking about people who happily identify with the term atheist. After a few posts you succeeded in turning this general debate into a debate about yourself, and you now presume that you have managed to figure me out. In reality, I rather think you have imposed your own negative associations with atheism on this thread and have even tried to pass them off as my own.

---

quote:

---

Atheism is not x, y and z, atheism is simply the non-belief in God(s).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
God doesn't come in bottles. One can see Him intellectually to a limited degree, but you do not seem interested in that. The other way is much better, but subtle.

---

quote:

---

That's a remarkable assumption indeed! Can you name anything else in your life where clarity about what needed to be done similarly descended onto you spontaneously and with perfect timing?

---

quote:

---

Without hell, your current life is a ultimately just pointless waiting.

---

quote:

---

...most religions do have clear lists of demands for your perusal. Hence you cannot claim to reject those religions because of a lack of clear demands. Rather you reject them first, and therefore then their demands. And since you do that indiscriminately, you are furthermore implicitly saying that clear demands of a god cannot come to you through the agency of a religion. Rather, you apparently expect the Archangel Gabriel to appear to you and respectfully hand you your personalized list of commandments, or something like that. Is that a realistic attitude?

---

quote:

---

You are rather sitting there in a corner saying "I'm not interested in all that intellectual talk about brewing. And no, I don't want to taste any fermented fruit juice.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Atheism, ISTM, is a philosophy masquerading as science. It claims scientific objectivity while simultaneously promulgating its ideas using the language of philosophy. In this respect it is deeply disingenuous because it attempts to present its claims as scientific in order to seduce people. In reality however, the philosophical claims of atheism are exactly the same as the scientifically unsubstantiated claims of any other faith position.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
I keep forgetting if it's just not believing that gods exist, or if it's believing that gods don't exist, or if it requires a level of knowledge about the gods that you don't believe in, or what. Sorry, I'm trying to keep up.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
What is the difference, from a scientific standpoint, between saying "There probably is no God" and "Humans probably can't fly"? It sounds like they are both saying something like, "We have little to no scientific evidence that x is true, and we can't scientifically recommend that you make any decisions that assume that x is true, especially if they endanger you or anyone else."

---

quote:

---

Those statements don't preclude that evidence could emerge, and they don't say whether or not you should believe it outside of a scientific framework. Many discussions and arguments could exist outside of that initial statement, about the pros and cons of believing in x despite having little to no scientific evidence, the benefits of believing, community, morality, etc etc.

---

quote:

---

Is there a difference you see? Or do you take objection with "Humans probably can't fly", too?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
We have no such set of data that God doesn't exist, except simple "we asked Him and he didnt answer" and experiments that rely upon interpretations we have no good reason to think really show (or not) that God exists.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
We have no such set of data that God doesn't exist, except simple "we asked Him and he didnt answer" and experiments that rely upon interpretations we have no good reason to think really show (or not) that God exists.

---

Isn't a complete lack of evidence of something usually considered a good reason to either doubt its existence or, at the very least, proceed as if it didn't exist? I mean, using the same logic you could postulate the existence of lumiferous æther, but what would be the point of postulating such a thing in the absence of a need to do so?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Squibs:
The first two options amount to the same thing and the third related to what I believe would be my position if I were to lose faith - agnosticism. Given that I've twice provided you with a definition of atheism, I can only assume you are acting the tit at this stage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Call me Numpty:
Those two statements are categorically different, and so much so that the question is rendered nonsensical. The "probably" in the first proposition is essential to its intellectual and philosophical integrity because there is insufficient evidence to justify its omission.

---

Posted                          

1. "I assert positively that God doesn't exist".
2. "There's no evidence that God exists, and therefore no case to answer".

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
I'm interested in metaphysics like I'm interested in Greek mythology, utilitarianism, etc. I don't much care if it's true or not and I'm not devoting my life to any of it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
Must we devote our whole lives to a philosophical stance, and then find out at the very end of life whether or not we came to believe it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
Isn't it more realistic to believe that we'd consider a philosophical stance at some length, listen intently to those who care about it deeply, talk, join in to some of the customs, traditions, honestly take part in liturgy, etc. and after a finite amount of time, come to a conclusion about whether or not it resonates as intellectually true? Or even subtly, still-small-voicedly true?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Rather, you apparently expect the Archangel Gabriel to appear to you and respectfully hand you your personalized list of commandments, or something like that. Is that a realistic attitude?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
Leaving aside your deliberately sensationalized description of that kind of event, yes, that's a pretty fair description of what I think we should all demand.

---

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:
Now that you say it, I do think I'm closer to being a Buddhist at heart than you are.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Isn't a complete lack of evidence of something usually considered a good reason to either doubt its existence or, at the very least, proceed as if it didn't exist?

---

quote:

---

I mean, using the same logic you could postulate the existence of lumiferous æther,

---

quote:

---

but what would be the point of postulating such a thing in the absence of a need to do so?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
If you claim to be truly interested why the sun shines, one can expect you to study physics. If you claim to be truly interested whether God exists, one can expect you to study metaphysics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason™:
That's not a philosophical stance anymore which you are talking about, that's already some religion. Here are Aquinas' famous five ways of proving God (start reading at "I answer that..."). Whether you agree with these proofs or not, I think you can see that they will not force you to commit to anything much other than the existence of God. That's what philosophy can hope to do for you.

---

quote:

---

Nothing in my experience suggests that the universe will accommodate us in this way. Nothing in my faith suggests that we have any right to make such demands of God. In fact, what you want there is simply to replace faith by knowledge.

---