|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Young atheists
|
kankucho
Shipmate
# 14318
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
[Atheism] is not the default neutral position at all.
You cannot lack something that does not exist. For example, if I make a cake and leave it out and my son takes a piece, I will notice a lack of a piece.
Without the cake (God) I would have never noticed the lack (atheism).
A lack means something is missing. How can something be missing if nothing was there in the first place?
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
We are all born atheists- not agnostics, as has been claimed above.
No. We are born theists. God creates souls and they are born. Newborns have innate, intrinsic knowledge of God. They lose this later as they become more human and are subject to human limitations.
The actual 'default neural position' is ______________________ .
We then fill in that gap with whatever we subsequently choose to believe, usually as a selection from philosophical constructs that are presented to us by whatever society we find ourselves in.
You illustrate this particularly well in your last assertion there, Evensong.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
No. We are born theists. God creates souls and they are born. Newborns have innate, intrinsic knowledge of God. They lose this later as they become more human and are subject to human limitations.
(Italics are mine)
Interesting that newborns are apparently monotheists in your world view. I wonder what happened before the time of Abraham? This demonstrates that you're projecting your own belief on others again.
[ 02. July 2013, 20:56: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Tea. ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) I wanted to do ![[Axe murder]](graemlins/lovedrops.gif) but you'd take it as passive aggression.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
I would say that the majority of people I deal with are vaguely aware of Christianity, and of the form of some of the observances done by Christians, but they don't really care much.
Just as a significant number of church-attenders are REALLY not interested in much about the Church or the religion beyond having someone on tap to offer support and condolence as necessary.
Apatheist is quite appropriate as a descriptor, ISTM.
They aren't formally agnostic, let alone atheist, they JUST DON"T CARE much, whatever Evensong or the other "but-they-must" people would like to think.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uriel
Shipmate
# 2248
|
Posted
It is often asserted that babies are atheists, in that they do not express a belief in God. Of course a babies beliefs are unverifiable, since they do not have a language to express what they believe, but putting that aside it seems intuitive that a baby would not have a belief in anything in particular. From this it is sometimes claimed that atheism is the "natural" state of humanity, and any non-atheist position is a deviation from the natural.
But on the same grounds babies also don't believe in the laws of thermodynamics, or that Rome is the capital of Italy, or that the earth revolves around the sun. Neither do they believe that unicorns exist, that rain falls upwards, or that Rome is the capital of Sweden. What a baby believes (or rather doesn't believe) has very little to do with what actually is, and shouldn't be used to impute what is "natural" or "proper" for adults to believe.
Posts: 687 | From: Somerset, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228
|
Posted
Babies are no more atheists than they are creationists - which they clearly must be, according to some of you, because babies have no belief in evolution (nor any conception of the origin of a species).
Please - go read up on "category mistakes" before you all go off committing further category mistakes left, right, and centre.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_mistake
It even discusses how "Most Americans are atheists" would not be a category mistake (though it is factually incorrect), while "Most bananas are atheists" is a category mistake.
Davyd has already pointed this out. But some of you missed his point. You are failing to recognise a basic logical distinction between that which CAN have a particular property (but doesn't) and that which cannot have a particular property at all.
For example: the reason I reject the proposition "courage is red" isn't because courage is really blue, it is because courage has no colour at all - cannot be any colour. Color is inapplicable to abstract concepts like courage. "Courage is red" is not factually false, it is a category mistake. Likewise, "babies (and bananas) are atheists" isn't factually true or false - it is an outright category mistake.
--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade
Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
Babies are no more atheists than they are creationists - which they clearly must be, according to some of you, because babies have no belief in evolution (nor any conception of the origin of a species).
Bad example. There's more to being a creationist than not believing in descent with modification. There's supposedly a whole set of positive beliefs involved as well.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
vw man
Shipmate
# 13951
|
Posted
2 of my Children are active Christians one of them has helped plant a Church,the other involved i work with students
My other 2 have turned away from God ButI know within me they will return to Christ
all who Have Children who no longer have a faith dont give up hpoe Christ may well bring them back at the right time
Posts: 115 | From: Derbyshire | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Jesus saves.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
Babies are no more atheists than they are creationists - which they clearly must be, according to some of you, because babies have no belief in evolution (nor any conception of the origin of a species).
Bad example. There's more to being a creationist than not believing in descent with modification. There's supposedly a whole set of positive beliefs involved as well.
Babies don't believe a single thing that Dawkins says. And never read your posts, either.
--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade
Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
Babies don't believe a single thing that Dawkins says. And never read your posts, either.
Curiously enough, babies don't believe any of that gumph of Yorick's about babies being atheists.
More fun with category mistakes.
--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade
Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
I'm not sure why athiests claim that babies are born athiest, or Christians that babies are born Christian. Affiliating one's intellectual position with that of a baby is not the greatest argument for it.
Surely immaturity of thought and ignorance of the world is not what you want to associate with your own position.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Uriel:
But on the same grounds babies also don't believe in the laws of thermodynamics, or that Rome is the capital of Italy, or that the earth revolves around the sun. Neither do they believe that unicorns exist, that rain falls upwards, or that Rome is the capital of Sweden. What a baby believes (or rather doesn't believe) has very little to do with what actually is, and shouldn't be used to impute what is "natural" or "proper" for adults to believe.
I agree. The fact that theists like to claim that babies believe in god is at once laughable and depressing. Babies are atheists*, and theists shouldn't get all upset about this. It's fine- there's plenty of time to brainwash them into believing in whatever stuff you want them to before they grow sufficient independence of thought to make up their own minds about it.
* Look, this is really, really simple.
a) Lacking belief in god is atheism.
b) Babies lack a belief in god.
Ergo, babies are atheists.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Uriel:
[qb]* Look, this is really, really simple.
a) Lacking belief in god is atheism.
b) Babies lack a belief in god.
Ergo, babies are atheists.
I've seen this argument many times from what could be called "reddit Atheists." But it seems rather dubious to me that babies have the mental capabilities necessary to form the conclusion "There is no God." I reject your argument.
If it makes you feel better, I reject the idea that babies have the capacity to form the conclusion that there is a God too.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Uriel:
[qb]* Look, this is really, really simple.
a) Lacking belief in god is atheism.
b) Babies lack a belief in god.
Ergo, babies are atheists.
I've seen this argument many times from what could be called "reddit Atheists." But it seems rather dubious to me that babies have the mental capabilities necessary to form the conclusion "There is no God." I reject your argument.
Regardless of whether babies are atheist, Christian or Muslim it is pretty bleedin' obvious that "form[ing] the conclusion "There is no God"" is not the same as "Lacking belief in god".
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
There is no real difference between positive (there is no God) or negative (I don't believe in God) atheism.
The difference is only philosophical and semantic posturing.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Uriel:
[qb]* Look, this is really, really simple.
a) Lacking belief in god is atheism.
b) Babies lack a belief in god.
Ergo, babies are atheists.
I've seen this argument many times from what could be called "reddit Atheists." But it seems rather dubious to me that babies have the mental capabilities necessary to form the conclusion "There is no God." I reject your argument.
Regardless of whether babies are atheist, Christian or Muslim it is pretty bleedin' obvious that "form[ing] the conclusion "There is no God"" is not the same as "Lacking belief in god".
Well, from that line a dining room chair is atheist, which makes it a pretty meaningless affair.
--------------------
Don't give up yet, no, don't ever quit/ There's always a chance of a critical hit. Ghost Mice
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
I think most people would agree that we are all born with a capacity for a sense of the numinous. In some people this goes on to develop into a belief in a deity or deities, usually because of what they are taught in childhood. In some it doesn't.
--------------------
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
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Jesus saves.
. . . but Moses invests. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
markporter
Shipmate
# 4276
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
* Look, this is really, really simple.
a) Lacking belief in god is atheism.
b) Babies lack a belief in god.
Ergo, babies are atheists.
Wouldn't this all be a lot simpler we acknowledged that we're using the words in different ways? Many of the thesis object to the labelling of babies as atheists because they find the use of the label implies a lot more than you're suggesting it does.
Personally I'm uncomfortable labelling babies as atheists because I think
1) It implies that the default human position doesn't involve God. It's not that I want to say babies have an active belief in God, but certainly for baptised infants in the church I would want to affirm some kind of relationship to and with the divine.
2) It implies a certain level of solidarity with the non-believing portion of society over and against the believing part.
Posts: 1309 | From: Oxford | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Jesus saves.
. . . but Moses invests.
...and The Buddha recycles
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
There is no real difference between positive (there is no God) or negative (I don't believe in God)
I don't agree.
You might as well say that there is no difference between "He who is not against us is for us" and "those not for us are against us".
Whereas the two similar-sounding statements assign the whole uncertain middle ground to opposite sides of the divide.
As for the meaning of atheism, it's very simple. By derivation it looks like it means "without religious belief" (like amoral or apolitical) but by common usage it means something closer to "opposed to religious belief".
Of the various alternative terms proposed, my preference would be for unbelieving and disbelieving. Seems to me totally obvious that newborns are unbelieving but not disbelieving.
Seems to me that everyone has their own idea of what's wrong with the church. And that in any "research" of this kind the temptation to make the connections between what interviewees say and one's own ideas must've overpowering without a really strong structured methodology.
But two cheers anyway, for someone trying to listen to what others have to say.
Best wishes,
Russ
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Uriel:
But on the same grounds babies also don't believe in the laws of thermodynamics, or that Rome is the capital of Italy, or that the earth revolves around the sun. Neither do they believe that unicorns exist, that rain falls upwards, or that Rome is the capital of Sweden. What a baby believes (or rather doesn't believe) has very little to do with what actually is, and shouldn't be used to impute what is "natural" or "proper" for adults to believe.
I agree. The fact that theists like to claim that babies believe in god is at once laughable and depressing. Babies are atheists*, and theists shouldn't get all upset about this. It's fine- there's plenty of time to brainwash them into believing in whatever stuff you want them to before they grow sufficient independence of thought to make up their own minds about it.
* Look, this is really, really simple.
a) Lacking belief in god is atheism.
b) Babies lack a belief in god.
Ergo, babies are atheists.
Still peddling category mistakes, I see.
--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade
Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by markporter:
1) It implies that the default human position doesn't involve God.
Yep, that is exactly the argument that we're having here. What is the default human position? Is belief in god/s something that must be acquired for one to become a theist, or something that must be lost for one to become an atheist?
The problem is, atheist/theist is an either/or categorisation. We lack a category for those who are completely unable to decide for themselves where they stand, so both sides are trying to claim them as their own.
For my part, I regard belief in god/s as something that must be acquired for one to become a theist, therefore I class babies as atheist. Others differ.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
markporter
Shipmate
# 4276
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Yep, that is exactly the argument that we're having here. What is the default human position? Is belief in god/s something that must be acquired for one to become a theist, or something that must be lost for one to become an atheist?
The problem is, atheist/theist is an either/or categorisation. We lack a category for those who are completely unable to decide for themselves where they stand, so both sides are trying to claim them as their own.
For my part, I regard belief in god/s as something that must be acquired for one to become a theist, therefore I class babies as atheist. Others differ.
I was trying to avoid notions of belief in the way I phrased it—as a Christian I would want to affirm some kind of connection between babies and God without putting it in terms of belief. It may be a largely one-sided relationship in which God does pretty much all the work and experience, but in labelling them as atheist I feel we're using a label that implies more than it actually means.
Posts: 1309 | From: Oxford | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
MSHB
Shipmate
# 9228
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
* Look, this is really, really simple.
a) Lacking belief in god is atheism.
b) Babies lack a belief in god.
Ergo, babies are atheists.
Look this is really, really simple.
a) lacking belief in god is atheism.
b) stones lack a belief in god.
Ergo, stones are atheists.
--------------------
MSHB: Member of the Shire Hobbit Brigade
Posts: 1522 | From: Dharawal Country | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by markporter:
as a Christian I would want to affirm some kind of connection between babies and God without putting it in terms of belief.
Of course you would. But that doesn't mean everyone else should as well.
I mean, you may as well go on to say that God has some kind of connection to everybody (imagio dei and all that), and thus that atheists - and Muslims, and Hindus, etc - are really Christians.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
There are two proposed definitions for athiest.
1: Rejection of a belief in dieties.
2: Absence of a belief in dieties.
The first is the historically and etymologically accurate definition. Since the word was invented it has always been used to mean those who explicitly reject belief. The OED, which bases its definitions on current usage, only has the following definitions of athiest:
A. noun
1. One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God.
2. One who practically denies the existence of a God by disregard of moral obligation to Him; a godless man.
B. adj.
1. Atheistic, impious.
And for Athiesm, noun:
Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism).
Yet words change over time. Can we broaden its meaning to include all those who merely have no belief? I would argue not, for the following reasons.
To broaden the definition involves rejecting the category of agnosticism, since in this broad definition anyone who does not explicitely believe in God is athiest, even though many would classify themselves as not having made up their minds one way or the other, or that it is philosophically impossible to know anything. To broaden a term to lump people together who hold different opinions is less precise and therefore less useful than otherwise.
As pointed out, the redefinition of athiesm to mean 'without belief' instead of 'rejection of belief', necessarily includes all inanimate objects and non-sentient animals as well as those professing non-belief. Again this makes the term less precise, less useful, and in fact somewhat ridiculous.
Some writers have proposed such concepts as implicit atheism such as George H Smith but that doesn't mean everyone else has to accept such proposals.
But words do change over time to new definitions, even ones that seem wrong or ridiculous. It is usage that matters. But one cannot invent usage oneself. To put the case for a redefinition, Yorick would have to provide instances of this new common useage of the word. Let's say four instances from reputable publications would probably be sufficient for the OED to consider adding the new useage. Can you do that Yorick?
[ 08. July 2013, 15:40: Message edited by: Hawk ]
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
To broaden the definition involves rejecting the category of agnosticism
I'd be willing to consider classing babies as agnostic, on the grounds that they haven't yet developed a mind to make up. But to my mind "agnostic" implies someone who knows there's a decision to be made but who hasn't made it yet - to me it's the category that implies the most thought is going on in the individual's mind.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think Yorick's definition is widely accepted. Put it this way, I have been debating with atheists for a number of years, and the idea that atheism amounts to 'a lack of belief in God', has been generally a mutually accepted premise to the arguments.
It seems bizarre to deny this, and insist that atheism must involve a positive belief that there is no God/god. There are atheists who do assert that, of course.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It seems bizarre to deny this, and insist that atheism must involve a positive belief that there is no God/god.
I think some people are struggling with the idea that a person can have no positive beliefs about religious subjects. Hence comments like "babies don't believe what Dawkins says either", as if they'd have to do so to be atheists!
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Then again, I find 'babies are atheists' rather weird, as you are getting into some strange presupposition-type stuff here. I am happy for 'atheist' to mean having a lack of belief in God/gods, but I would also think it involves a presupposition, something like, 'capable of having a belief in something'.
I don't really know if babies believe things, certainly such intellectual concepts. I don't think carrots do, so an atheist carrot sounds peculiar to me.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
markporter
Shipmate
# 4276
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Of course you would. But that doesn't mean everyone else should as well.
No, but it means that I'm uncomfortable with someone else insisting that babies are atheists and that's that. Of my two objections this is probably the weaker—I object more to them being implicitly identified with a specific subgroup of society.
quote:
I mean, you may as well go on to say that God has some kind of connection to everybody (imagio dei and all that), and thus that atheists - and Muslims, and Hindus, etc - are really Christians.
I don't think my position demands that—sure, I could try and go that route, but I think it's coherent not to.
Posts: 1309 | From: Oxford | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
These for me are increasingly acceptable, or if you like, decreasingly bizarre:
this carrot is an atheist
my cat is an atheist
my baby is an atheist
my son is an atheist
I think the reason is that we take 'atheist' as suggesting that someone could take another view, for example, could be a theist, or wasn't sure.
I just don't think that a carrot, a cat, or a baby, could be a theist. Therefore, to say that they could be an atheist also seems odd.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
To broaden the definition involves rejecting the category of agnosticism
I'd be willing to consider classing babies as agnostic, on the grounds that they haven't yet developed a mind to make up. But to my mind "agnostic" implies someone who knows there's a decision to be made but who hasn't made it yet - to me it's the category that implies the most thought is going on in the individual's mind.
Interesting that you're willing to narrow the definition of 'agnostic' to a positively-conceived philosophical position, while rejecting such precision in 'atheist', despite both coming from the same etymology and historical usage.
It is certainly possible to hold no philosophical position about God at all. Either because they've literally never thought about it (very few people - as soon as they are asked the question they think about it and formulate an opinion, however poorly) or because they don't have the mental capacity/development to hold any philosophical position. Simply describing such extremely rare individuals as 'non-theist' would do it IMO.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Interesting that you're willing to narrow the definition of 'agnostic' to a positively-conceived philosophical position, while rejecting such precision in 'atheist', despite both coming from the same etymology and historical usage.
As I said, we lack a word for those who are unable to consider the question. And I did say I'd accept agnostic as a valid answer to the "what category are babies in" question.
It's interesting that you bring up etymology though. Surely "atheist" is etymologically equivalent to your preferred "non-theist", whereas someone like Dawkins would more accurately be described as "anti-theist".
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's interesting that you bring up etymology though. Surely "atheist" is etymologically equivalent to your preferred "non-theist", whereas someone like Dawkins would more accurately be described as "anti-theist".
Well, its etymology is a direct transliteration from the greek ἄθεος. This word literally is 'not-God', but it doesn't mean that. The privative ἄ is used to derive a sense opposite from the stem. In this case the stem is theos, or God, but the meaning of theos in this sense indicates not the person of, but the belief in such.
Therefore ἄθεος means the opposite of belief in God. The opposite of belief in something is disbelief, not just absence of belief. The opposite of black is white, not colourless.
I agree with you about Dawkins though. He is definitely anti-belief-in-God, rather than merely not believing in Him.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
Interesting that you're willing to narrow the definition of 'agnostic' to a positively-conceived philosophical position, while rejecting such precision in 'atheist', despite both coming from the same etymology and historical usage.
As I said, we lack a word for those who are unable to consider the question. And I did say I'd accept agnostic as a valid answer to the "what category are babies in" question.
Unfortunately while you may accept it, that falls into the same problem as trying to define them as athiest. Both terms refer to a specific philosophical position. One that God doesn't exist, the other that 'gnosis' or knowledge, doesn't exist - refering to the belief that one doesn't or cannot know if God exists or not.
To hold the agnostic viewpoint, one needs to have considered the evidence and come to the conclusion (even if only a snap decision) that one doesn't know, or cannot know. A baby has not and can not consider the question and therefore cannot be considered an agnostic.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, it's a bit like asking if a baby could be an adherent of dual aspect monism. One of my cousins is supposed to have sat up in the pram, and declared that Peano axioms are obviously first order statements. I do apologize, I made that up.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
I agree with you about Dawkins though. He is definitely anti-belief-in-God, rather than merely not believing in Him.
I would say that Richard Dawkins is both atheist and anti-theist, not one or the other. I would also disagree with the implication that anti-theists are simply a subset of atheists; instead the underlying thinking process ought to be different in each case.
For atheism - the absence of belief in, or active disbelief in, God - all that is needed is a conclusion that the existence of God is, to put it mildly, implausible. Opinions about whether the gods described by various religions are nice or horrible are really not relevant. Neither are opinions about their followers.
Anti-theism, however, derives from a different thought process. Anti-theism could also mean "opposed to God" or "opposed to theist religion". It is not logical for an atheist to be an anti-theist in the first sense; on the other hand a Satanist may well believe in God but also be anti-theist in the first sense (and probably the second sense as well). Some atheists may well be anti-theist in the second sense. It can, of course, derive from the attributes of God as described in the Bible or the Quran, if you can consider that a religion that (a) believes in that God and (b) still considers him worthy of worship is dangerous and needs to be opposed (cf the parallel thread on William Lane Craig). Alternatively the perceived behaviour of theists (intolerance, misogyny, homophobia, Dead Horses generally) could be the cause of anti-theism.
Myself? I am an atheist and increasingly turning into a Class 2 anti-theist.
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
I would say that Richard Dawkins is both atheist and anti-theist, not one or the other. I would also disagree with the implication that anti-theists are simply a subset of atheists; instead the underlying thinking process ought to be different in each case....Myself? I am an atheist and increasingly turning into a Class 2 anti-theist.
I agree with your post. Anti-theist and athiest are indeed distinct. Seperating anti-theist into two distinct senses is useful as well. Language fails us here since it would be useful to have a different world for each sense. Would it be helpful to distinguish between anti-deist for the first sense (opposed to God) and anti-theist for the second (opposed to belief in God)?
In that sense Dawkins is both athiest and anti-theist, whereas it would be logically impossible to be athiest while also being anti-deist since someone who doesn't believe in God cannot also set themselves against Him (at least not willfuly). Anti-deists would be those who believe in God but don't like Him.
[ 09. July 2013, 15:28: Message edited by: Hawk ]
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
'Misotheist' is useful here; on the other hand, a theist can be a misotheist.
[ 09. July 2013, 15:38: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
'Misotheist' is useful here; on the other hand, a theist can be a misotheist.
Is that someone that believes in Japanese soup?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
'Misotheist' is useful here; on the other hand, a theist can be a misotheist.
Is that someone that believes in Japanese soup?
In fact, there was a famous Japanese misogynist, who went around liberally applying fermented bean paste to women's calves; when arrested, he claimed it was all part of an elaborate art installation, involving strange puns.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
