|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Arguing for atheism by arguing against theism
|
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408
|
Posted
I've recently been introduced to the notion that atheists don't have to make a positive case for atheism, they simply have to refute the supernatural claim made by theism through the tools of reason, rationality, critical thinking and the scientific method.
Even if it was demonstrated that Christianity was false - perhaps by unearthing the body of Jesus or some such - there are simply too many supernatural beliefs out there to debunk.
But I think there is a deeper problem. What do people think of the claim that atheists - presumably because atheism is presupposed to be so blindingly obvious - need not make a positive case for their world-view? Is this special pleading? Or perhaps atheism leads to no extraordinary claims about life, the universe and everything and therefore has no obligations to be positively promoted?
It never really occurred to me that there where people out there (and it seems quite a few of them) who hold to the belief that because atheism is the default belief they don't have to argue for it.
[ 23. February 2013, 12:37: Message edited by: tclune ]
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
Is atheism the default belief? Are the people who think that there's something 'out there' automatically called atheists, until such time as they identify what it is they do believe?
The only 'positive' argument I've heard for atheism is that it frees people from worrying about sin or an afterlife, ironically arguments for Christian belief.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
passer
Indigo
# 13329
|
Posted
Why would I argue for the default position? The definition of atheism is the rejection of belief in theism. Why would you expect me to argue the case for refusing to believe in something that is unprovable?
Posts: 1289 | From: Sheffield | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by passer:
Why would I argue for the default position? The definition of atheism is the rejection of belief in theism. Why would you expect me to argue the case for refusing to believe in something that is unprovable?
Since every good debate I have attended requires a little bit of demolishment of the other side and a bit or presenting of an argument in support of your own side of course I expect atheists to argue not only against the theistic position but also for their own atheistic position.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
For an atheist to support their own views, the need to do nothing except decide to be an atheist.
However, if they want to convert others to their way of thinking they need a lot more than the list in the OP.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bostonman
Shipmate
# 17108
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
What do people think of the claim that atheists - presumably because atheism is presupposed to be so blindingly obvious - need not make a positive case for their world-view? Is this special pleading? Or perhaps atheism leads to no extraordinary claims about life, the universe and everything and therefore has no obligations to be positively promoted?
Because atheism isn't a positive worldview, it's an aspect of many distinct and very different positive worldviews.
So the negative half of the argument (the argument against theism) is atheism.
The positive half of the argument could be secular humanism, Marxism, Nietzschean some kind of neo-Aristotelian or neo-Kantian moral theory, moral sentimentalism, utilitarianism... or any non-academic theory, although I suspect most people's common-sense views fall into one of those moral categories. The possibilities here are endless. There are also theistic forms of many of these, by the way.
And that's just morality: the other parts of people's worldviews are also, in large part, distinct and modular, rather than forming a systematic view. This is the trend in contemporary science and contemporary philosophy, as far as my non-specialist brain can understand.
The choice between atheism and theism comes down to a question of faith or not, and not argument, frankly. Quoth St. Ambrose: "it did not suit God to save his people by arguments."
Posts: 424 | From: USA | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
I've recently been introduced to the notion that atheists don't have to make a positive case for atheism, they simply have to refute the supernatural claim ...
I'm sure there will be others who will explain better! But since the word 'atheism' could only arise when there were, apparently, gods in the first place, then I'd definitely say that atheism is the default position. Go back to the time of our common ape ancestors - no humans around to think up gods. Then move forward to humans who evolved to ask questions - superstitions arise and an idea of gods.
Every new-born child has to be told about gods and beliefs, it is not an inherited thing.
quote:
...made by theism through the tools of reason, rationality, critical thinking and the scientific method.
Since god beliefs have held such a powerful position for such a very long time, there is certainly, from my personal, atheist view, to replace the myth with facts, but this can only be done by the means you say, not by force.
quote:
QB]Even if it was demonstrated that Christianity was false - perhaps by unearthing the body of Jesus or some such - there are simply too many supernatural beliefs out there to debunk.[/QB]
Sad, but true .. but not eventually impossible!
quote:
But I think there is a deeper problem. What do people think of the claim that atheists - presumably because atheism is presupposed to be so blindingly obvious - need not make a positive case for their world-view? Is this special pleading? Or perhaps atheism leads to no extraordinary claims about life, the universe and everything and therefore has no obligations to be positively promoted?
I'll go with the latter of those two alternatives.
quote:
It never really occurred to me that there where people out there (and it seems quite a few of them) who hold to the belief that because atheism is the default belief they don't have to argue for it.
No, they don't have to argu for it - it's that question of how can youprove a negative, but it is important from the point of view of all surely, that freligious, God*-quoted ideas should take no part in law. Sound laws and moral behaviour do not need any God/god/s
*i.e. 'because God says so'
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Go back to the time of our common ape ancestors - no humans around to think up gods. Then move forward to humans who evolved to ask questions - superstitions arise and an idea of gods.
Sorry, but this is very anthrocentric and implies an inability of animals to reason and be creative, or infact believe in something other than the material of themselves and the environment around them (if they can even believe in that) which ignores a fair chunk of scientific theory and experiementation/observation.
Whilst I doubt any scientist can realistically hope to prove either for or against, we have to wonder at certain things (such as funeral rituals, the chimpanzee's waterfall dance, for example you can read Goodall here for something of a romanticised look at the latter and the examples could go on and on and on) within other animals and consider whether they are indicative of at least a spiritual/philosophical if not also possibly indicative of a potential to believe in a 'God'.
[ 23. February 2013, 13:19: Message edited by: Sergius-Melli ]
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Squibs:
I've recently been introduced to the notion that atheists don't have to make a positive case for atheism, they simply have to refute the supernatural claim ...
I'm sure there will be others who will explain better! But since the word 'atheism' could only arise when there were, apparently, gods in the first place, then I'd definitely say that atheism is the default position. Go back to the time of our common ape ancestors - no humans around to think up gods. Then move forward to humans who evolved to ask questions - superstitions arise and an idea of gods.
Every new-born child has to be told about gods and beliefs, it is not an inherited thing.
[QUOTE]
Now now Susan, you're being naughty again. Evensong's already told you off in Hell for repeating false dichotomies.
You can only have atheism where they are people to disbelieve in gods. Default position? Dream on Mrs D. Atheism is a minority world view and always has been. Read some scientific literature (which has been quoted to you on these threads) and there's a good case for saying that kid's natural mental architecture makes it more natural for them to believe in God than not. It's atheism - not theism - that kids have to be taught.
Now if you're a naturalist, you have to explain why evolution builds us a mental architecture that looks for supernatural explanations and transcendence when the objects of those beliefs is non-existent.
So in answer to Mr Squibbs' OP - yep, an atheist needs to give an explanation for their worldview and not just make the lazy argument that it's someone else's job to convince them they're wrong.
[ 23. February 2013, 13:29: Message edited by: Truman White ]
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs
What do people think of the claim that atheists - presumably because atheism is presupposed to be so blindingly obvious - need not make a positive case for their world-view? Is this special pleading? Or perhaps atheism leads to no extraordinary claims about life, the universe and everything and therefore has no obligations to be positively promoted?
Atheism is only blindingly obvious to someone who is already (consciously or subconsciously) committed to strong or naive empiricism: namely, that "all knowledge comes to us via sense perception, therefore we have to assume that only that which we can perceive empirically can be real". This, of course, is a philosophical (more specifically epistemological) position, and a 'positive' view of reality, on which there is a burden of proof.
Furthermore, the assumption that atheism does not imply any particular view of reality, and therefore does not bear a burden of proof, presupposes that 'God' is an entirely trivial concept, on a par with Russell's Teapot and the Invisible Pink Unicorn. This, of course, is nonsense. An "intelligent, personal, eternal creator of the entire universe" is about the most non-trivial idea imaginable, from which flow numerous concepts. Therefore the denial of this idea also automatically commits the denier to a whole raft of other concepts (such as the need to find some other explanation for the origin and development of life which obviates the need for the involvement of an external intelligence. This, of course, has far-reaching implications).
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
For me the question is along the lines of why is Zeus entitled to a level of credulity I wouldn't give the Loch Ness Monster? Is there a reason for treating the two hypotheses differently? Shouldn't we automatically believe both under the standard of "belief is required until absolute proof of non-existence is offered" being promoted in this thread?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
What do people think of the claim that atheists - presumably because atheism is presupposed to be so blindingly obvious - need not make a positive case for their world-view?
I think it is exactly right, but not limited to atheism. There is absolutely no need for a Christian to argue for their world view (or Muslims, or Hindus, or what-have-you.) Why on earth would you believe that you need to have a good argument for what is important to you? The real point is that you know what is important to you. Or so ISTM.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
For me the question is along the lines of why is Zeus entitled to a level of credulity I wouldn't give the Loch Ness Monster?
But Zeus is not God, if 'God' is defined as "the eternal, intelligent, personal creator of the universe". We cannot infer Zeus from anything we experience or observe in our lives. But we can infer God.
So God and Zeus are not in the same epistemic category at all. The only thing they have in common is the vague notion of supernaturalism and the sequence of phonemes g-o-d or equivalent in other languages. But conceptually there is no - or very little - equivalence.
But even if it could be argued that there is significant equivalence, your point is still not relevant. At the most basic level, the debate concerns the existence of an intelligent creator of the universe (which some people - myself included - claim can be inferred from the nature of reality), not the precise name of that creator. Of course, as a Christian, I believe the argument can be taken forward to put a name to God, but I am talking about God at the most basic level of mere existence.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
What do people think of the claim that atheists - presumably because atheism is presupposed to be so blindingly obvious - need not make a positive case for their world-view?
I think it is exactly right, but not limited to atheism. There is absolutely no need for a Christian to argue for their world view (or Muslims, or Hindus, or what-have-you.) Why on earth would you believe that you need to have a good argument for what is important to you? The real point is that you know what is important to you. Or so ISTM.
--Tom Clune
The context of the discussion was that the atheist should be vocal about their atheism but only to the point that that they offered criticism of all other beliefs. In other words, they aren't happy to just believe, they also want others to believe the same yet they are only willing to argue this by making a negative case.
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
For me the question is along the lines of why is Zeus entitled to a level of credulity I wouldn't give the Loch Ness Monster? Is there a reason for treating the two hypotheses differently? Shouldn't we automatically believe both under the standard of "belief is required until absolute proof of non-existence is offered" being promoted in this thread?
All sounds a bit confused to me mate, but you might be writing in a hurry. Here's a link to some research about the naturalness of intuitive theism . Basic idea, is that theism is a natural conclusion that the human mind normally draws from experience and observation.
Question then is, what kind of being does theism lead us to believe in. For any answer to that you need to have a look at how people who have started with the premise that there is a god, get to the conclusion that that god looks like Zues or whoever. As a basic principle, I'd say it's OK to accept your initial worldview until something comes along to convince you it needs to change. Zues might sound like a credible answer to your question 'what is god like' until some one convinces you either that you don't need a god to make sense of your world after all, or that Christ makes the most sense of both your world as you experience it, and your inclination to believe in a supernatural being.
Come back and chat some more Mr C.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
....and can anyone apart from my spellchecker tell me who this Zues character is....? ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
it's atheism - not theism - that kids have to be taught.
You are both wrong. It is overly simplistic to say a child is wired to believe in god(s), therefore inevitably will. The hardware might be present, but the software still needs to be installed. Religion, even the concept of gods, appears to have developed over time.
The default position of humans is wonder. From this develops everything else.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
For me the question is along the lines of why is Zeus entitled to a level of credulity I wouldn't give the Loch Ness Monster?
But Zeus is not God, if 'God' is defined as "the eternal, intelligent, personal creator of the universe". We cannot infer Zeus from anything we experience or observe in our lives. But we can infer God.
Translation: my God is different than all those other Gods.
Why can't we infer Zeus? Haven't you ever seen lightning? Heck, we've even got video footage of Zeus smiting the temple of a rival God.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
An "intelligent, personal, eternal creator of the entire universe" is about the most non-trivial idea imaginable, from which flow numerous concepts.
But so is an impersonal, non-intelligent entire universe a non-trivial idea from which flow numerous concepts. Or the Buddhist concept of dharma. They are beautiful hypotheses but unlike science where "the great tragedy of Science–the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact" (T.H. Huxley, 1870) can happen it is a bit difficult to come up with a fact that can't be explained away (well I guess the latter two could be destroyed if the intelligent personal eternal creator showed up and demonstrated herself).
Note that just because humans have the brain structure to imagine a god doesn't mean there is one. We also tend to think the earth is flat and that the sun moves around the earth (or at least rises and sets). We tend to personalize things such as our cars and boats.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs
What do people think of the claim that atheists - presumably because atheism is presupposed to be so blindingly obvious - need not make a positive case for their world-view? Is this special pleading? Or perhaps atheism leads to no extraordinary claims about life, the universe and everything and therefore has no obligations to be positively promoted?
Atheism is only blindingly obvious to someone who is already (consciously or subconsciously) committed to strong or naive empiricism: namely, that "all knowledge comes to us via sense perception, therefore we have to assume that only that which we can perceive empirically can be real". This, of course, is a philosophical (more specifically epistemological) position, and a 'positive' view of reality, on which there is a burden of proof.
Furthermore, the assumption that atheism does not imply any particular view of reality, and therefore does not bear a burden of proof, presupposes that 'God' is an entirely trivial concept, on a par with Russell's Teapot and the Invisible Pink Unicorn. This, of course, is nonsense. An "intelligent, personal, eternal creator of the entire universe" is about the most non-trivial idea imaginable, from which flow numerous concepts. Therefore the denial of this idea also automatically commits the denier to a whole raft of other concepts (such as the need to find some other explanation for the origin and development of life which obviates the need for the involvement of an external intelligence. This, of course, has far-reaching implications).
You either know a lot of strange atheists or you've created them out of a metric fucktonne of straw.
The ubiquitous Invisible Pink Unicorn and Russell's Teapot (I'd also add Sagan's Dragon) aren't in my experience (YMMV) used to suggest that such bizarre and frivolous concepts are on a par with your belief in YHWH, but to show why there's a burden of proof on the person making the positive claim. You can't just claim something exists and expect anyone who disagrees to disprove it.
That's also why you're wrong about making a positive case for atheism - while some atheists are absolutists who deny even the possibility of a deity, however defined, most are open to persuasion if decent evidence is offered. They're sceptical of the possibility, but would engage with genuine evidence. They're not stating as a fact that there is no god, but critiquing the evidence offered, while giving some reasons why they consider theist beliefs to be implausible in general.
It's similar to disbelief in homeopathy - there are good reasons for being dubious to the point of outright rejection of homeopathy's claims, but the claimed mechanism is never properly specified, so any attempt to prove that it doesn't work is doomed to an eternity of repetitive debunking. It's perfectly reasonable to list general principles which suggest that the belief should be regarded with scepticism, but continue to ask for evidence to support the claims, rather than stating outright that the belief is undoubtedly wrong.
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
For me the question is along the lines of why is Zeus entitled to a level of credulity I wouldn't give the Loch Ness Monster?
But Zeus is not God, if 'God' is defined as "the eternal, intelligent, personal creator of the universe". We cannot infer Zeus from anything we experience or observe in our lives. But we can infer God.
So God and Zeus are not in the same epistemic category at all. The only thing they have in common is the vague notion of supernaturalism and the sequence of phonemes g-o-d or equivalent in other languages. But conceptually there is no - or very little - equivalence.
I think you're arguing this one backwards mate. It's legitimate for an atheist to ask ask why we should believe in any gods at all, since there are still plenty of people around who are theists but not monotheists. I'm cool with starting there, since an atheist is going to have a job explaining away the ubiquity - both current and historical - of theism.
I reckon you're challenge back is a gud 'un - let's take a concept of God which takes theism to its logical conclusion. But put yourself in the shoes of an atheist like the C-meister, and maybe you'll agree that he's OK asking the question.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
We cannot infer Zeus from anything we experience or observe in our lives. But we can infer God.
I missed this at first. What utter tripe.
Animism makes more innate sense than "God." Deism makes far more sense than Christianity. I would also posit that the Greek gods make more sense as they are random bastards, which more fits how the world appears to work.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
it's atheism - not theism - that kids have to be taught.
You are both wrong. It is overly simplistic to say a child is wired to believe in god(s), therefore inevitably will. The hardware might be present, but the software still needs to be installed. Religion, even the concept of gods, appears to have developed over time.
The default position of humans is wonder. From this develops everything else.
You reckon? One the articles (one that I haven't read) asks the question whether a child would come to believe in God if stranded on a desert Island with no other human input. Would a real Mowgli have become a theist. Have a gander and see what you reckon.
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Go back to the time of our common ape ancestors - no humans around to think up gods. Then move forward to humans who evolved to ask questions - superstitions arise and an idea of gods.
Sorry, but this is very anthrocentric and implies an inability of animals to reason and be creative, or infact believe in something other than the material of themselves and the environment around them (if they can even believe in that) which ignores a fair chunk of scientific theory and experiementation/observation.
Whilst I doubt any scientist can realistically hope to prove either for or against, we have to wonder at certain things (such as funeral rituals, the chimpanzee's waterfall dance, for example you can read Goodall here for something of a romanticised look at the latter and the examples could go on and on and on) within other animals and consider whether they are indicative of at least a spiritual/philosophical if not also possibly indicative of a potential to believe in a 'God'.
Yes of course, I think we are so lucky to have as much information as we do about the behaviours and rituals of animals,
which we humans can interpret as having the possibility of philosophical thought, but since these have apparently not evolved, or only extremely marginally so, during the time
these species have survived, I think it is far too big a step to suggest any kind of god.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Why can't we infer Zeus? Haven't you ever seen lightning? Heck, we've even got video footage of Zeus smiting the temple of a rival God.
Right. Now you've slipped into a certain standard "New Atheist" mode of debating, I guess I'll have to ditch the word 'God / god' and talk about "intelligent creator of the universe" - or perhaps, let's get even more basic: external ordering influence on matter.
Happy now?
(And, I must remind you that the application of intelligence is the opposite of magic. After all, my car does not work on 'magic' because it was designed and manufactured by intelligent beings. It certainly would be a magical vehicle if it had self-assembled through the action of wind blowing through a scrap yard! And the argument is even stronger the more complex the mechanisms in question. Clearly I am not the one who believes in magic. So, yes, we can infer the existence of an "external ordering influence on matter").
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Truman White
Shipmate
# 17290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
We cannot infer Zeus from anything we experience or observe in our lives. But we can infer God.
I missed this at first. What utter tripe.
Animism makes more innate sense than "God." Deism makes far more sense than Christianity. I would also posit that the Greek gods make more sense as they are random bastards, which more fits how the world appears to work.
Isn't randomness just illusion in your worldview? Or am I mixing you with someone else?
Posts: 476 | Registered: Aug 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
Now now Susan, you're being naughty again. Evensong's already told you off in Hell for repeating false dichotomies.
Oooops! ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
quote:
You can only have atheism where they are people to disbelieve in gods. Default position? Dream on Mrs D. Atheism is a minority world view and always has been.
Okay, I have to agree with that, but that's no reason to say that it always will be. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:
Read some scientific literature (which has been quoted to you on these threads) and there's a good case for saying that kid's natural mental architecture makes it more natural for them to believe in God than not.
Surely that's a survival instinct - believe what those who protect you believe in?
quote:
It's atheism - not theism - that kids have to be taught.
I'll leave that one for now! And my computer has to go back to Dolphin next Week for some TLC....
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Go back to the time of our common ape ancestors - no humans around to think up gods. Then move forward to humans who evolved to ask questions - superstitions arise and an idea of gods.
This proves too much. Without our ape ancestors, there's no one to think up atheism, so theism is the default assumption. Without our ape ancestors, there's no one to think up anything, so for anything you can think up, the opposite is the default assumption. Which leads in one step to logical contradiction, and is thus disproved by reductio ad absurdum*.
----
*reduction to absurdity; see link
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby
You either know a lot of strange atheists or you've created them out of a metric fucktonne of straw.
*yawn*
That 'fucktonne' of straw consists of real atheists spread all over the place, otherwise why the constant critiques of theism, if such people have no basis to make those critiques?
You say...
quote:
They're not stating as a fact that there is no god, but critiquing the evidence offered, while giving some reasons why they consider theist beliefs to be implausible in general.
How is it possible to criticise another viewpoint if you don't have some kind of (positive) epistemological basis from which to do so?
You also say...
quote:
They're sceptical of the possibility, but would engage with genuine evidence.
Ah, so these 'atheists' have a positive view as to what constitutes "genuine evidence"?
It sounds to me like such people have a view of reality - or at least subscribe to an epistemological theory - which acts as the framework through which they assess the claims of theism.
Sounds very 'positive' to me. And on this positive view there is a burden of proof.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Yes of course, I think we are so lucky to have as much information as we do about the behaviours and rituals of animals,
which we humans can interpret as having the possibility of philosophical thought, but since these have apparently not evolved, or only extremely marginally so, during the time
these species have survived, I think it is far too big a step to suggest any kind of god.
You are adding an extra layer of evidence needed which is illogical, and pretty damn difficult to mesure even if it did occur, since few non-human animals write or draw pretty pictures, or certianly haven't produced any that have survived since the dawn of that particular species development.
Through this adding of an extra layer you have now changed the goal posts from saying that animals have no philosophical/religious beliefs (ie. religion is something solely confined to the 'superiority' of humans) to one where you say, animals may exhibit philosophical/spiritual beliefs and actions but to be relevant and acceptable evidence this spirituality/philosophical belief is only true if it has changed over time, (To which I beg an answer: since when did ideas, or anything really, have to evolve past a point of perfection?) further you also incorrectly (and somewhat contradictoraly) rule out the step that you have stated that humans make in their belief in God - that we are able to ask questions (which animals show evidence of doing) and therfore we created superstitions and then God. If the first point is the basis of humanity's belief in God then there is no illogical reason why animals who share that same characteristic do not also hold some forms of superstition and therefore a belief in a 'God'.
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Furthermore, the assumption that atheism does not imply any particular view of reality, and therefore does not bear a burden of proof, presupposes that 'God' is an entirely trivial concept, on a par with Russell's Teapot and the Invisible Pink Unicorn.
Very strongly disagree. I for one have never considered God to be a trivial concept. The position and influence of God/god/sthroughout history has been so dominant and overwhelming that it would be impossible to do so.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
it's atheism - not theism - that kids have to be taught.
You are both wrong. It is overly simplistic to say a child is wired to believe in god(s), therefore inevitably will. The hardware might be present, but the software still needs to be installed. Religion, even the concept of gods, appears to have developed over time.
The default position of humans is wonder. From this develops everything else.
Hear, hear!!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
The trouble of course is what do we mean by "God"? If we mean, "Gods" in terms of creatures that are immortal, that are merely Super-sized versions of us, then yes, atheism is very persuasive.
The reason why I believe in God, is simply I believe that that the human capacity to love, to commune, and to adore, does not ultimately originate with human beings alone. The human capacity to love springs first and foremost in my mind, with God's love within Godself, in the Holy Trinity, and secondly, with God's love towards creation, which is the raison d'etre of its existence. St John puts it best, "We love because God first loved us."
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Yes of course, I think we are so lucky to have as much information as we do about the behaviours and rituals of animals,
which we humans can interpret as having the possibility of philosophical thought, but since these have apparently not evolved, or only extremely marginally so, during the time
these species have survived, I think it is far too big a step to suggest any kind of god.
You are adding an extra layer of evidence needed which is illogical, ...
You're probably right, but it doesn't sound illogical to me. I was just thinking on 'what would happen if' lines.
quote:
....and pretty damn difficult to mesure even if it did occur, since few non-human animals write or draw pretty pictures, or certianly haven't produced any that have survived since the dawn of that particular species development.
What would you consider would be a step in the direction of discovering whether any other species has, or could have, a concept of god?
quote:
since when did ideas, or anything really, have to evolve past a point of perfection?)
Well, since no-one can ever be a judge of what perfection is, then the answer to that is never.
quote:
further you also incorrectly (and somewhat contradictoraly) rule out the step that you have stated that humans make in their belief in God - that we are able to ask questions (which animals show evidence of doing) and therfore we created superstitions and then God.
I don't know the answer to that, but it sounds as if a vital element here is language which can express abstract thought.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
How is it possible to criticise another viewpoint if you don't have some kind of (positive) epistemological basis from which to do so?
But that's easy. You make a claim and posit such-and-such evidence. I show that the evidence is either inaccurate, or doesn't really support your claim. I don't need to have proof of any other position to do this.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
[QUOTE]It sounds to me like such people have a view of reality - or at least subscribe to an epistemological theory - which acts as the framework through which they assess the claims of theism.
Sounds very 'positive' to me. And on this positive view there is a burden of proof.
Is it the same as the view of reality you have, or include your reality as a subset? If you use the same kind of epistemology, then they no more have to prove it than you do.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
quote:
because atheism is the default belief
Do you know what this means? Could you explain to me?
It sounds a bit like the null hypothesis in statistics. I.e. that the supposed factoid being investigated by the statistical analysis is not proven and should not be believed.
And for a particular test, I can accept that you do not positively seek to prove the null hypothesis, you just wait to see if the test proves the hypothesis.
But the overall method needs to be positively argued, as well as particulars such as what level of probability is the dividing line.
For the theist/atheist argument this would probably mean showing the test that belief in God (or any other belief for that matter) would have to pass, and showing why these are reasonable.
A theist may well seek to undermine these by arguing that your test criteria exclude things that you would admit are true, thus forcing you to change your test.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
I find it odd to discuss "default belief". It seems to me that to collect data on "default belief", you would have to raise a number of children from birth with absolutely no mention of any kind of religion, including any mention of atheism or agnosticism (which implies ignorance of a great deal of history, literature, etymologies, etc. as well) and then observe what beliefs such children had as adults. I suspect most of them would end up with idiosyncratic collections of superstitions.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I find it odd to discuss "default belief". It seems to me that to collect data on "default belief", you would have to raise a number of children from birth with absolutely no mention of any kind of religion, including any mention of atheism or agnosticism (which implies ignorance of a great deal of history, literature, etymologies, etc. as well) and then observe what beliefs such children had as adults. I suspect most of them would end up with idiosyncratic collections of superstitions.
East Asia is pretty secular in terms of world population. Western religions are distinctly minorities in China and Japan, and traditional eastern religions are only practiced in terms of their cultural aspects. My uncle did say to me, that the result was that many young East Asians are horribly materialistic, they might not believe in God, but they might not believe in anything beyond their latest gadget or fashion either...
Though u can make the same charge about young people everywhere.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I find it odd to discuss "default belief". It seems to me that to collect data on "default belief", you would have to raise a number of children from birth with absolutely no mention of any kind of religion, including any mention of atheism or agnosticism (which implies ignorance of a great deal of history, literature, etymologies, etc. as well) and then observe what beliefs such children had as adults. I suspect most of them would end up with idiosyncratic collections of superstitions.
I think the idea that atheism is the default belief (belief?) is simply wishful thinking on behalf of the atheist/humanist evangelists on here (and elsewhere of course.)
I think the results of your experiment would be as you said - some "empirical evidence" huh?
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
I think the default position would have to be some sort of agnosticism. How can someone be a atheist if they don't know there is a belief in a deity to not hold?
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bostonman:
Because atheism isn't a positive worldview, it's an aspect of many distinct and very different positive worldviews.
So the negative half of the argument (the argument against theism) is atheism.
The positive half of the argument could be secular humanism, Marxism, Nietzschean some kind of neo-Aristotelian or neo-Kantian moral theory, moral sentimentalism, utilitarianism... or any non-academic theory, although I suspect most people's common-sense views fall into one of those moral categories.
What Bostonman said.
In order for atheism to be the default position, there would have to be a null atheism that wasn't any particular positive atheism. There isn't. In order to argue for atheism you have to argue for some one positive worldview.
Negative arguments work if they show that the position criticised is self-contradictory by its own standards. In order for an argument that there isn't 'sufficient' evidence for the other person's position to work, you have to show that your own (moral and metaphysical) position is sufficiently evidenced by the relevant standards.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I've often felt that atheists need to move beyond simply outlining what they see as religious error and awfulness if atheism is to become a meaningful alternative to religion.
I accept that atheism itself simply represents an absence of belief in God rather than some kind of positivity switch that's flicked on as soon as someone leaves religion behind; but giving up Christianity for what looks like the neutral vacuum of atheism doesn't seem like much of an exchange to me, even though Christianity is challenging. You may say that atheism is 'better' simply because it's 'true'; but since truth is so hard to establish and agree on it seems to me that atheism has to be 'better' in other more immediate ways if it's going to trump religion.
If atheism is merely a vacuum that's always going to be overlaid with other ideologies, be they communism, humanism, etc., then it might be more useful and creative to explore how atheism is 'better' than religion by presenting it in combination with values that are widely appreciated in our culture. (This might be a challenge in such a pluralistic and individualistic culture, though. Do we really agree on all that much nowadays, or is modern society highly polarised?)
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
In no particular order
quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:
I think the default position would have to be some sort of agnosticism. How can someone be a atheist if they don't know there is a belief in a deity to not hold?
Because atheism is an absence of belief in a god or gods it is inevitable that someone who has never imagined a god or gods and has never been appraised of the possibility of a god or gods MUST be an atheist – though they wouldn’t know it of course.
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
You can only have atheism where they are people to disbelieve in gods.
Wrong – but to have atheism you must have people to unbelieve in gods
Default position? Dream on Mrs D. Atheism is a minority world view and always has been. Read some scientific literature (which has been quoted to you on these threads) and there's a good case for saying that kid's natural mental architecture makes it more natural for them to believe in God than not. It's atheism - not theism - that kids have to be taught.
There is a lot of evidence to suggest that children’s brains are evolutionarily disposed to believe what they are told by what they see as authority figures. That category probably originally meant parents who warned against dangers, those children who obeyed were more likely to reproduce. Now our society is much more complex – in addition to parents we have print and visual media, teachers, priests etc - and don’t minimise the effect of peer pressure on five year olds struggling to come to grips with new relationships at school. I’ve read people (not all I’m sure) who try to make out that kids are hardwired for deism – all they’ve done, IMO, is demonstrate that youngsters are hardwired to be receptive, and if encouraged may receive religion (it may be relevant that it is commonly stated that 80% of those who claim a specific religion follow the same beliefs as their parents).
Now if you're a naturalist, you have to explain why evolution builds us a mental architecture that looks for supernatural explanations and transcendence when the objects of those beliefs is non-existent.
Evolution builds us a mental architecture that looks for explanations (starting with looking for and recognising faces – a skill which which becomes "Jesus-in-a-slice-of-toast). Young children don’t imagine supernatural explanations – that comes later and presumably as a result of influences which they have developed to be able to incorporate in their thinking. Mister Rogers cardigan
So in answer to Mr Squibbs' OP - yep, an atheist needs to give an explanation for their worldview and not just make the lazy argument that it's someone else's job to convince them they're wrong.
My worldview is simple – show me real evidence for supernature and I’ll accept it exists – until then I’ll use my time, efforts and money in ways I think are worthwhile based on the natural world.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
it's atheism - not theism - that kids have to be taught.
You are both wrong. It is overly simplistic to say a child is wired to believe in god(s), therefore inevitably will. The hardware might be present, but the software still needs to be installed. Religion, even the concept of gods, appears to have developed over time.
The default position of humans is wonder. From this develops everything else.
Probably a better way of saying what I tried to get across above
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
(And, I must remind you that the application of intelligence is the opposite of magic. After all, my car does not work on 'magic' because it was designed and manufactured by intelligent beings. It certainly would be a magical vehicle if it had self-assembled through the action of wind blowing through a scrap yard! And the argument is even stronger the more complex the mechanisms in question. Clearly I am not the one who believes in magic. So, yes, we can infer the existence of an "external ordering influence on matter").
A rather silly and thoroughly discredited argument tornado-junkyard-747 first used by Fred Hoyle (who was a lifelong atheist) to support his idea of Panspermia
Your body is a complex organism – it incorporates a host of "disorders" which most four year old children would not “order”. Your “external influence” is demonstrably incompetent.
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Betts
Ship's Navigation Light
# 17074
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
(And, I must remind you that the application of intelligence is the opposite of magic. After all, my car does not work on 'magic' because it was designed and manufactured by intelligent beings. It certainly would be a magical vehicle if it had self-assembled through the action of wind blowing through a scrap yard! And the argument is even stronger the more complex the mechanisms in question. Clearly I am not the one who believes in magic. So, yes, we can infer the existence of an "external ordering influence on matter").
A rather silly and thoroughly discredited argument tornado-junkyard-747 first used by Fred Hoyle (who was a lifelong atheist) to support his idea of Panspermia
Your body is a complex organism – it incorporates a host of "disorders" which most four year old children would not “order”. Your “external influence” is demonstrably incompetent.
What a load of rubbish! As I've said before, scientismists will say that anything they don't like has been discredited or disproved.
Just because natural bodies don't work quite like cars doesn't mean they weren't designed (or "willed") to be that way.
--------------------
"We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."
Posts: 2080 | From: Leicester | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
HughWillRidmee
Shipmate
# 15614
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
What a load of rubbish! As I've said before, scientismists will say that anything they don't like has been discredited or disproved.
Just because natural bodies don't work quite like cars doesn't mean they weren't designed (or "willed") to be that way.
No – but there is no evidence to suggest that they were, and all the factual evidence points to an inescapable conclusion – for which an “external ordering influence on matter” is not required.
Sinuses, human eyes, the laryngeal nerve, food, drink and speech through a single cavity and into a tube which crosses the airway thus creating death by choking (unlike dolphins who are, of course, also mammals), Vas deferens, koalas - I particularly like koalas - ask me about koalas.
Arthritis (all hundred plus forms of it), motor neurone disease, cancers, embolisms, senility, being comatose for a third of our lives, teeth that fall out, knees that wear out.........
I'm glad my car wasn't designed (or “willed”) by an “external ordering influence on matter”
--------------------
The danger to society is not merely that it should believe wrong things.. but that it should become credulous, and lose the habit of testing things and inquiring into them...
W. K. Clifford, "The Ethics of Belief" (1877)
Posts: 894 | From: Middle England | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
kankucho
Shipmate
# 14318
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The trouble of course is what do we mean by "God"? If we mean, "Gods" in terms of creatures that are immortal, that are merely Super-sized versions of us, then yes, atheism is very persuasive.
I don't think of them in those terms but the question you raise is pertinent to the problem all the same.
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The reason why I believe in God, is simply I believe that that the human capacity to love, to commune, and to adore, does not ultimately originate with human beings alone. The human capacity to love springs first and foremost in my mind, with God's love within Godself, in the Holy Trinity, and secondly, with God's love towards creation, which is the raison d'etre of its existence. St John puts it best, "We love because God first loved us."
The reason I don't believe in God is that I believe love does originate with human beings - although not necessarily alone. I only experience love through human beings (and, I fondly imagine, a select few domesticated animals). No amount of being told that some abstract divine personality also loves me has given me any cognitively meaningful alternative. Love, as I see it, is an innate quality of being human - as, for that matter, is hatred. Love and hate are flip sides of the same propensity for passion. If you want to claim divine origination for love, you must also credit the same for hatred.
As for St John: well, he would say that, wouldn't he? If that argument is really the best that (Christian) theists can offer, it doesn't bode well for their ability to challenge assumptive, circular reasoning.
--------------------
"We are a way for the cosmos to know itself" – Dr. Carl Sagan
Kankucho Bird Blues
Posts: 1262 | From: Kuon-ganjo, E17 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I find it odd to discuss "default belief". It seems to me that to collect data on "default belief", you would have to raise a number of children from birth with absolutely no mention of any kind of religion, including any mention of atheism or agnosticism (which implies ignorance of a great deal of history, literature, etymologies, etc. as well) and then observe what beliefs such children had as adults. I suspect most of them would end up with idiosyncratic collections of superstitions.
East Asia is pretty secular in terms of world population. Western religions are distinctly minorities in China and Japan, and traditional eastern religions are only practiced in terms of their cultural aspects. My uncle did say to me, that the result was that many young East Asians are horribly materialistic, they might not believe in God, but they might not believe in anything beyond their latest gadget or fashion either...
Though u can make the same charge about young people everywhere.
I very much like HCH's concise summing-up of the question. Very interesting indeed, too, about the young East Asians. Being entirely materialistic doesn't have to mean that they do not have strong emotional attachment to friends and families, does it? There will always be some people who appear to be very selfish, but they don't make up a huge majority, do they, as societies, especially very crowded ones, could not function if that were so. The young with access to material things also have access to, and, one hopes, really appreciate and are much closer to, all the latest scientific research and work.
I ceased to believe in any God/god/s or superstitions long ago although I still smile at the fun that could be had from having one's horoscope cast or future told, and the more I know, the less I am likely to return to any such beliefs! But I think that makes me a stronger person.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
You reckon? One the articles (one that I haven't read) asks the question whether a child would come to believe in God if stranded on a desert Island with no other human input. Would a real Mowgli have become a theist. Have a gander and see what you reckon.
I reckon s/he would be an animist. Fair nonsense to believe s/he would develop theism one-off.
quote:
Originally posted by Truman White:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I would also posit that the Greek gods make more sense as they are random bastards, which more fits how the world appears to work.
Isn't randomness just illusion in your worldview? Or am I mixing you with someone else?
Fair cop, but I am not really arguing my world view on this thread.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think that atheism often becomes connected with various views of reality, such as materialism. But of course, this connection is not inevitable - thus not believing in God does not imply materialism.
But it often seems as if the atheist must demonstrate his particular world view, whether materialism or dualism, or whatever. But this is a separate issue, I think, since atheism involves no particular world view.
Thus we end up with 'I don't believe in God'. I don't think traditionally that negative views like this need to be demonstrated. Do I need to demonstrate that I don't collect stamps, or I don't believe in pixies? No.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
Can one exactly say "I don't believe in a Ground of being" or "I don't believe in an Ultimate Concern."
Most arguments made by atheists always seem to be an argument against a particular type of literal theism which sees God as a "Person." The sneaky and sophisticated theist will always insist that whenever we talk about God, we are always using metaphors. Even the notion that God is a Person, so essential to Western theism, in itself is metaphorical.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
