|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Is there really such a thing as atheism? (I don't think so)
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
I am aware that Buddhism is non-theistic. I was thinking more of atheism as the rejection of a religion (or of all such).
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I was thinking more of atheism as the rejection of a religion (or of all such).
Why? Whilst Buddhism is most properly described as non-theist, there are atheist Buddhists.
Religion is more than theism, and whilst most atheist I know reject religion as well, I don't see how that is part of the definition of atheism.
As for your earlier comment regarding atheists speaking mainly of Christianity, I would suggest that is more a function of the dominance of Christianity in your culture rather than a link between the two.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
X-post. This is to HCH.
But is atheism a rejection at all? If I say, "I am not a philatelist" I'm not saying I reject anything, but only that I don't collect stamps. There is not one sort of stamp that I don't collect more than any other stamp. I'm not saying I hate all stamp collectors. It does not follow from my statement that I was a member of the philately society and had an unfortunate experience there that left me with a bitter taste in my mouth. It just means I don't collect stamps.
The unfortunate conclusions start to appear thick and fast when a collective term is coined for non-stamp-collectors. Let's say, astampists. Then people ask, what motivates astampists? Which stamp or stamps are they rejecting? Don't they really have hobbies that take the place in their lives that philately takes in ours? Doesn't that show they're really repressed philatelists deep inside?
One could easily forgive the astampist, or atheist, who irritably growls, "It's not about you."
[ 01. November 2016, 20:41: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Bugger, got caught up in silly language.
Atheism doesn't require rejection per se. All it requires is a lack of belief which, as you say, isn't quite the same thing.
--------------------
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
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
I think even the phrase 'lack of belief' is pretty problematic. Beliefs aren't things you lack when you don't have them. Even 'absence of belief' is dodgy. Beliefs aren't things that can be absent or present.
I don't have an absence of belief in birther or truther conspiracy theories. I just disbelieve them. I don't lack belief in Tory party health policy.
--------------------
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
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
But you are disbelieving specific things. An atheist doesn't need to know the particulars of Christianity or Hinduism to say they don't believe in any god.
It is a weird thing to insist an atheist must specifically disbelieve.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But you are disbelieving specific things. An atheist doesn't need to know the particulars of Christianity or Hinduism to say they don't believe in any god.
It is a weird thing to insist an atheist must specifically disbelieve.
Yes. You must discollect a particular kind of stamp.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
Usually when I hear of atheists, they are in countries like Britain or the U.S. where a common reference point is some version of Christianity. I hear thereby of atheists as rejecting specifically Christianity. I do not usually hear of atheists as people rejecting Buddhism or various other religions. I suppose there must be such but I do not hear of them. Are there societies in which atheism is rare?
Hemant Mehta who has a fairly popular atheist blog is a former Jain and has had some scathing remarks about his former religion's tendency to promote extreme fasts (no food for several days) even for children (this recently led to the death of a child). India has a fairly large rationalist association (though small when one considers the population size). There are atheists who use to be Muslim; at least one is in prison in Saudi Arabia and several have been hacked to death in Bangladesh. Atheists who use to be Buddhists may be a bit less seen especially since it is possible to be a Buddhist and an atheist (just as it is possible to be Jewish and an atheist).
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
@mousethief. Superb. Isn't it a corollary of Russell's position that as soon as one starts talking about God, theos's, gods, the supernatural, the non-physicalist one has just left language, meaning, rational thought?
A position that is clear and pure.
To which there is no possible challenge but Jesus and His revelation of eternal life.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But you are disbelieving specific things. An atheist doesn't need to know the particulars of Christianity or Hinduism to say they don't believe in any god.
It is a weird thing to insist an atheist must specifically disbelieve.
Yes. I should probably have written 'don't believe them'.
That said, I think when it comes to ideas that we've actually heard of there's no real difference between 'don't believe at all' and 'disbelieve'. If we don't believe an idea or fact we've heard of at all it's because we have some background idea of what's plausible that it doesn't fit into. (Or else because we have some background idea that the person speaking is unreliable.)
This doesn't mean that the disbelief has to be in any way specific. If someone tells me that they've seen a near-hominid cryptid I don't have to specifically disbelieve the yeti, the sasquatch, and all other possible candidates to say that I find ape-man hominids implausible in the general case.
--------------------
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
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The unfortunate conclusions start to appear thick and fast when a collective term is coined for non-stamp-collectors. Let's say, astampists. Then people ask, what motivates astampists? Which stamp or stamps are they rejecting? Don't they really have hobbies that take the place in their lives that philately takes in ours? Doesn't that show they're really repressed philatelists deep inside?
One could easily forgive the astampist, or atheist, who irritably growls, "It's not about you."
I heartily agree with this. Very well put, sir.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
X-post. This is to HCH.
But is atheism a rejection at all? If I say, "I am not a philatelist" I'm not saying I reject anything, but only that I don't collect stamps. There is not one sort of stamp that I don't collect more than any other stamp. I'm not saying I hate all stamp collectors. It does not follow from my statement that I was a member of the philately society and had an unfortunate experience there that left me with a bitter taste in my mouth. It just means I don't collect stamps.
The unfortunate conclusions start to appear thick and fast when a collective term is coined for non-stamp-collectors. Let's say, astampists. Then people ask, what motivates astampists? Which stamp or stamps are they rejecting? Don't they really have hobbies that take the place in their lives that philately takes in ours? Doesn't that show they're really repressed philatelists deep inside?
One could easily forgive the astampist, or atheist, who irritably growls, "It's not about you."
You can't say that you are not a philatelist unless you have an idea in your head about what a philatelist is.
If you had preconceived ideas about the nature of philately which were inaccurate, and tried to recruit others to your point of view that philately was a pointless hobby and anyone who took it up was an idiot, and in fact it should be only exercised out of the public eye and definitely not taught to children, you would be creating your own group of 'astampists'. It would not then be a surprise if there were challenges to your position,
If you simply didn't collect stamps and got on with your life, leaving stamp collectors to get on with theirs, there would not be an issue.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
No analogy works perfectly, especially if people refuse to see the point.
One doesn't need to know the inner workings of any religion to disbelieve the concept of god(s). One can merely believe that supernatural beings are unnecessary. Actually, even that much is unnecessary. All one need do is see the universe as a natural, unguided phenomenon. The concept of god need not be.
--------------------
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
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No analogy works perfectly, especially if people refuse to see the point.
One doesn't need to know the inner workings of any religion to disbelieve the concept of god(s). One can merely believe that supernatural beings are unnecessary. Actually, even that much is unnecessary. All one need do is see the universe as a natural, unguided phenomenon. The concept of god need not be.
Well, thank you for your posts, and mousethief also, which are very clear. It baffles me why some Christians make such heavy weather of atheism, and set up various straw men, to do with rejecting God and so on.
Some atheists do reject God, but that isn't what defines atheism.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No analogy works perfectly, especially if people refuse to see the point.
One doesn't need to know the inner workings of any religion to disbelieve the concept of god(s). One can merely believe that supernatural beings are unnecessary. Actually, even that much is unnecessary. All one need do is see the universe as a natural, unguided phenomenon. The concept of god need not be.
The false assumptions here are that people who believe in God do so because they see God as necessary, or because they think that there must have been a creator of the universe for it to exist.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
One doesn't need to know the inner workings of any religion to disbelieve the concept of god(s).
I agree. It is possible to imagine a world in which some believe in God and some don't but in which there are no religions. Conversely religions could exist whether or not there is a God. Why should atheism be linked to any understanding of religion?
The idea of God doesn't have enough emotional force to make me believe but if one day it did would my belief cause me to join a religion? Why?
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Damn good question! It has the force for me but no religious brand does apart from the Christianity (UK) brand Oasis label of course.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
There are plenty of people with a vague belief in an unknowable God but who don't see the point of "organised religion".
And plenty of people with no belief in God.
The "no belief" people include those who've seriously considered the idea and rejected it, as well as those who've never seriously considered it.
There are those who embrace atheism as a quasi-religious ideological position to which they display quasi-religious commitment. But they're probably just the visible top of the iceberg.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
It is possible to imagine a world in which some believe in God and some don't but in which there are no religions. Conversely religions could exist whether or not there is a God. Why should atheism be linked to any understanding of religion?
The idea of God doesn't have enough emotional force to make me believe but if one day it did would my belief cause me to join a religion? Why?
Religions are there to help facilitate our beliefs, not to dictate but to guide us in them, to help us to develop spiritually and to come together in them - where God is involved, to worship alongside each other.
I don't know how an idea of God could provide emotional force so that someone would believe. Any idea of God must surely include something about the nature of God.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Jesus'
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
You can't say that you are not a philatelist unless you have an idea in your head about what a philatelist is.
Of course a non-stamp collector such as myself doesn't need a very robust understanding of stamp collecting to say he isn't one. I know what stamps are. I know what collecting is. Therefore I know I am not a stamp collector. But the thing is, I don't define myself as an astampist. It just so happens I'm an astampist.
There are tons of groups of people I do not belong to. It never occurs to me to describe myself as a non-skateboarder, or a non-Corvair-owner, or a non-scuba-diver. The complement of any defined set of humans is not necessarily itself anything other than the complement of some other set. Non-spelunking is not a "thing." Non-cycling is not a "thing."
I'm not clear why this simple and obvious principle doesn't apply to the complement of the set of theists.
quote:
If you had preconceived ideas about the nature of philately which were inaccurate, and tried to recruit others to your point of view that philately was a pointless hobby and anyone who took it up was an idiot, and in fact it should be only exercised out of the public eye and definitely not taught to children, you would be creating your own group of 'astampists'. It would not then be a surprise if there were challenges to your position,
This is true. But those aren't astampists, they're antistampists. Which is a different beast.
quote:
If you simply didn't collect stamps and got on with your life, leaving stamp collectors to get on with theirs, there would not be an issue.
Nope, sorry, I'm calling bullshit. People were burning atheists at the stake when they were still secretive and not the least bit evangelical. The "new atheism" is a reaction to persecution, not the origin of it. Of course being human beings they have become just as big of assholes as the theists they are reacting to. But that's humans for you. We kinda suck that way.
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No analogy works perfectly, especially if people refuse to see the point.
One doesn't need to know the inner workings of any religion to disbelieve the concept of god(s). One can merely believe that supernatural beings are unnecessary. Actually, even that much is unnecessary. All one need do is see the universe as a natural, unguided phenomenon. The concept of god need not be.
The false assumptions here are that people who believe in God do so because they see God as necessary, or because they think that there must have been a creator of the universe for it to exist.
But that's quite irrelevant to the existence and nature of atheists. Some of them may think that of theists; others may not give a crap.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
I think it was Leibniz who coined the phrase : Atheism is a Christian sect. There are many ways to read and understand that of course, but there is a lot of truth in it for today's 'new atheism' that often seems born from a reaction purely to Christian fundamentalism than to any true conviction about the existence of God.
And Tillich said the West is still "Christian" (or, was when he was alive and writing) because Christianity has formulated the questions we ask.
My Buddhist academic advisor says that Westerners have tended to ask, "What is God like?" while Easterners have tended to ask, "What is mind like?" That's at least an interesting place to start thinking about how impossible it is to force the whole world into these neat, Christian-thought-derived categories when the rest of the world has been thinking and asking about completely different questions.
So having grown up in a Christian or post-Christian context, some atheists may be influenced by Christianity in the categories of their thought. They also might not be, I think - especially now, since in Tillich's time, it was still common for people in the West to go to church or nominally identify as Christian, where that's really less the case anymore.
Anyway, my advisor is a professor at the Graduate Theological Union. He happens to hate the term "theological," because it excludes his belief system. "Religious" doesn't fare much better, because he says it also doesn't describe the reality of Buddhist thought and practice (although as a Westerner, I have a hard time understanding that one).
The whole world would be a much better place, though, if we Western Christians would stop imposing our thought categories on everyone else. It makes me think of all the violence done in God's name when missionaries thought they saw the devil everywhere...
So to turn to Tillich again, I find his concept of "ultimate concern" useful. I think that describes the belief system concept the OP is getting at: the fact that everyone has a belief system of some sort. It's not fair to label that religious or theist, or not-atheist, but it is true that humans generally have some system of beliefs not just about how the world works, but about what is ultimately significant, meaningful, important - whether that be seeking knowledge/truth, getting along with others, avoiding going to hell, seeking the good of others above self, providing for yourself and your family, making America great again, whatever. We can analogously, if inaccurately, call that religious, in the sense that it fits in the Western/Christian concept of "religious." But it's good to let others speak in their own terms about what's ultimately of value to them, I think.
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
The false assumptions here are that people who believe in God do so because they see God as necessary, or because they think that there must have been a creator of the universe for it to exist.
Can you analyse exactly why you believe, I wonder?
--------------------
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 Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No analogy works perfectly, especially if people refuse to see the point.
One doesn't need to know the inner workings of any religion to disbelieve the concept of god(s). One can merely believe that supernatural beings are unnecessary. Actually, even that much is unnecessary. All one need do is see the universe as a natural, unguided phenomenon. The concept of god need not be.
The false assumptions here are that people who believe in God do so because they see God as necessary, or because they think that there must have been a creator of the universe for it to exist.
My statement makes absolutely no assumptions about theists.
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
Anyway, my advisor is a professor at the Graduate Theological Union. He happens to hate the term "theological," because it excludes his belief system. "Religious" doesn't fare much better, because he says it also doesn't describe the reality of Buddhist thought and practice (although as a Westerner, I have a hard time understanding that one).
Buddhism doesn't properly fit any but the loosest interpretation of religion. And yet, it does not sit completely outside, either.
--------------------
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
There seems to be a lot of confusion between atheism and anti-theism. Some of the prominent new atheists strike me as antis, e.g. Dawkins, but I think there are plenty of atheists who not anti.
Lacking a belief in God does not imply rejecting God, or anything negative.
Part of this is about the burden of proof, isn't it? Some Christians try to insist that atheism means 'I claim that there is no God', as then the atheist has the burden of proof. Well, there are atheists who claim that, but plenty who don't.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Burden of proof is always on the person proposing the existence of something. This is the Atheists' point. You wouldn't accuse someone who doesn't believe in the Loch Ness Monster to prove it doesn't exist; you'd ask the believer to provide evidence for Nessie's existence.
Once you've decided that believing in God has no evidential basis, and is actually rather silly (like believing in fairies or Father Christmas), then you don't have to go far (ISIL, Norn Irn, Palestine) to find places where people not believing in their particular version of the Great Sky Fairy could hardly be presumed to be likely to make things worse.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Once you've decided that believing in God has no evidential basis, and is actually rather silly (like believing in fairies or Father Christmas), then you don't have to go far (ISIL, Norn Irn, Palestine) to find places where people not believing in their particular version of the Great Sky Fairy could hardly be presumed to be likely to make things worse. [emphasis mine]
The italicized part is not lack of belief but positive belief, and as such falls under the burden of proof rule. I'd say it's anti-theist, that is anti-god-botherers, although perhaps not anti-god. It is part of the arrogance of the "New Atheists" that sticks in the craw of theists the way that theists' assumptions about the ethics/morals of atheists stick in their throats.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
I'm not sure it does fall under positive belief, if it's simply an outworking of the basic principle that believing in things for which there is no evidence is inherently rather silly.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Burden of proof is always on the person proposing the existence of something. This is the Atheists' point. You wouldn't accuse someone who doesn't believe in the Loch Ness Monster to prove it doesn't exist; you'd ask the believer to provide evidence for Nessie's existence.
Once you've decided that believing in God has no evidential basis, and is actually rather silly (like believing in fairies or Father Christmas), then you don't have to go far (ISIL, Norn Irn, Palestine) to find places where people not believing in their particular version of the Great Sky Fairy could hardly be presumed to be likely to make things worse.
All of those places have been buggered about by imperialists disempowering local people including by bringing in competing aliens whose culture is radically different. In Iraq (the product of terribly wiser Ottoman then unwise Anglo-French then American imperialism) the Shia majority is not plural. Religion is a very good differentiator. Otherizer. Tyrannizer. Secularization would certainly help, the Soviets understood that. But that doesn't work in an open society. Look at France.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Can you analyse exactly why you believe, I wonder?
Yes, I can. I believe because over time I was convinced, by my own experience of the way Christ shows us the way to God.
Jesus said 'Seek and you will find, Knock and the door will be opened, Ask and it will be given to you.' I found this to be the truth. When we draw near to God, God draws near to us.
The living God exists, therefore I believe.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Can you analyse exactly why you believe, I wonder?
Yes, I can. I believe because over time I was convinced, by my own experience of the way Christ shows us the way to God.
Jesus said 'Seek and you will find, Knock and the door will be opened, Ask and it will be given to you.' I found this to be the truth. When we draw near to God, God draws near to us.
The living God exists, therefore I believe.
Problem is my experience is very different. So much so that I'm no longer sure I believe there is a God. More uninclined to let go of the hope than anything.
So if your experience and application of that verse is correct, why doesn't it happen for everyone? I find that verse one of the hardest in the NT, because it doesn't seem to chime with my experience.
[ 03. November 2016, 12:48: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Nope, sorry, I'm calling bullshit. People were burning atheists at the stake when they were still secretive and not the least bit evangelical. The "new atheism" is a reaction to persecution, not the origin of it. Of course being human beings they have become just as big of assholes as the theists they are reacting to. But that's humans for you. We kinda suck that way.
I see your bullshit and raise you one.
It was heresy people were burned for, back in the day, i.e. people who took a stance against the standard theological viewpoint of the Church. AFAIK, the sanction against atheists was refusal of burial in consecrated ground. Which I assume they wouldn't be too bothered about.
Today's atheists have not been persecuted, there is no reaction.
I don't know any Christians who consider atheists inherently immoral, that seems to be another straw man.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Can you analyse exactly why you believe, I wonder?
I should withdraw that question because I think we did a similar Q and A not so long ago! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This seems like a sloppy, over-broad definition of theism that would be rejected in any other context.
I see I'm not the first person to have this reaction. "Atheism" has nothing do with a lack of belief in general. It only refers to a lack of belief in gods.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Yes, I can. I believe because over time I was convinced, by my own experience of the way Christ shows us the way to God.
Jesus said 'Seek and you will find, Knock and the door will be opened, Ask and it will be given to you.' I found this to be the truth. When we draw near to God, God draws near to us.
The living God exists, therefore I believe.
Problem is my experience is very different. So much so that I'm no longer sure I believe there is a God. More uninclined to let go of the hope than anything.
So if your experience and application of that verse is correct, why doesn't it happen for everyone? I find that verse one of the hardest in the NT, because it doesn't seem to chime with my experience.
I don't know why, Karl. I know that no two people's experience of God is identical, and that our relationship with Christ is personal.
I can say that I had no preconceived ideas about how or whether I would discover the truth about God's existence when I began to search, that I considered other explanations, and that it was over a period of time.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Well a good scientist always takes an interest in someone else's research, even if it conflicts with his own conclusions. So to that end, I would - genuinely - like to know, in precise terms:
1. What you did
2. What the results were
3. What you concluded
4. The reasoning that drive your conclusions from your results.
And this is genuine. Data is data.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
To an extent, I accept the idea of seeking and finding, only it wasn't Jesus that I found! Still, I'm assuming that Jesus is OK with this, why wouldn't he be?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Burden of proof is always on the person proposing the existence of something.
Can you prove the existence of burden of proof?
quote:
You wouldn't accuse someone who doesn't believe in the Loch Ness Monster to prove it doesn't exist; you'd ask the believer to provide evidence for Nessie's existence.
On a strict reading of the burden of proof principle, I'm not under any burden to argue this doesn't establish your point. I can just say that it doesn't establish your point, and leave you to try and prove that it does.
However, as I think burden of proof is a legal concept which is misapplied and abused in this context:
1) The reason that I don't believe in the Loch Ness Monster isn't that nobody has proved its existence.
I've never seen a fossil elasmosaurus. I believe in them. There's quite a lot I believe in that I take on trust. (Lungfish, for instance. I'm told they have lungs. Never seen proof. Giant squid likewise.)
The reason I don't believe in the Loch Ness Monster is that you'd expect someone to have a reliable sighting of it by now given that it's supposed to pop up to the surface now and then. That is a negative claim that I'm asserting. Not a lack of positive evidence on their part.
Secondly, even if the principle applied in the case of cryptozoology that wouldn't be sufficient to establish that it applies in the general case. (Which if the burden of proof is on you to establish its existence is on you to establish.)
In so far as the burden of proof is at all applicable to epistemology, the burden of proof lies on the person trying to change the other person's mind.
--------------------
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
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Burden of proof is always on the person proposing the existence of something. This is the Atheists' point. You wouldn't accuse someone who doesn't believe in the Loch Ness Monster to prove it doesn't exist; you'd ask the believer to provide evidence for Nessie's existence.
Once you've decided that believing in God has no evidential basis, and is actually rather silly (like believing in fairies or Father Christmas), then you don't have to go far (ISIL, Norn Irn, Palestine) to find places where people not believing in their particular version of the Great Sky Fairy could hardly be presumed to be likely to make things worse.
That's a legal definition. And a narrow definition of what belief and nonbelief is, to the point of mockery and hubris; the implication is that people who hold to a belief are childlike akin to believers in leprechauns. It makes it easy to dismiss as stupid, uneducated and nitwit when the comparison is attempted this way.
We might have to understand how it is that people have been able to maintain an understanding of a basic foundation, which some personify as a god and some do not, from the Greeks (think of Plotinus and neoPlatonism) to ongoing ideas of a "perennial philosophy".
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Can you analyse exactly why you believe, I wonder?
Yes, I can. I believe because over time I was convinced, by my own experience of the way Christ shows us the way to God.
This is a reasonable and respectable answer.
quote:
The living God exists, therefore I believe.
This is not.
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
In so far as the burden of proof is at all applicable to epistemology, the burden of proof lies on the person trying to change the other person's mind.
If I am trying to convince you of something, then yes.
However, in general, the burden belongs to the extraordinary claim.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
And a narrow definition of what belief and nonbelief is, to the point of mockery and hubris;
And telling atheists that they are deluding themselves isn't?
Your OP combined with this statement is a plank so prominent that pirates will soon be walking it. I suggest you consider removing it before the weight of their tread causes ocular damage.
--------------------
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
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Well a good scientist always takes an interest in someone else's research, even if it conflicts with his own conclusions. So to that end, I would - genuinely - like to know, in precise terms:
1. What you did
2. What the results were
3. What you concluded
4. The reasoning that drive your conclusions from your results.
And this is genuine. Data is data.
I don't think that this is the right place for the long version.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
In so far as the burden of proof is at all applicable to epistemology, the burden of proof lies on the person trying to change the other person's mind.
If I am trying to convince you of something, then yes.
However, in general, the burden belongs to the extraordinary claim.
If you aren't trying to convince anyone of something then you aren't making a claim.
Also, just what makes a 'claim' 'extraordinary' or not? It seems to me that a 'claim' is 'extraordinary' if and only if the person you're trying to convince has positive reasons to disbelieve it.
--------------------
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
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
That's a legal definition. And a narrow definition of what belief and nonbelief is
What it actually is, is a proper recognition that we're not defining "belief", we are defining "belief in".
That's where you (like so many of my clients...) are falling down. You're completely failing to recognise that "belief in" is a verb with an object. Theism is "belief in gods" and atheism is "no belief in gods". You're trying to act as if they are "belief" and "no belief", a verb hanging in the air with no object to operate upon.
You may very well be correct that no-one on the planet can say "I do not believe". But "I believe" is not theism.
Frankly, your argument is equivalent to "vegetarianism doesn't exist because vegetarians eat". Vegetarians aren't defined by not eating. They are defined by what they don't eat.
[ 03. November 2016, 21:46: Message edited by: orfeo ]
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
In fact, look at Karl's post and then look at your response. Every one of Karl's uses of "believe/belief" is followed by the word "in". Yours is not. And that's exactly where you're going wrong.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Bliss. As on the Brexit thread.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I don't know any Christians who consider atheists inherently immoral, that seems to be another straw man.
Hmm. I don't personally know any white supremacists, but I don't doubt that they exist.
There are seven American states in which atheists were held to be so immoral that it was felt necessary to write bans on atheists holding public office into their constitutions.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I don't know how an idea of God could provide emotional force so that someone would believe. Any idea of God must surely include something about the nature of God.
I guess the discussion has moved on but I'd say arguments for and against belief in God seem fairly equally balanced for me. So starting from a position of disbelief why would I change?
Saul very probably knew something about Jesus' teachings but I suspect it wasn't the logic of some new argument which made him a Christian.
In my case, I'd be happy to believe in the existence of God but the world just doesn't seem that sort of way to me. And, if I did believe, I struggle to see how joining a religion would make the world a better place. OK it might nurture my spiritual development but what isn't clear is how necessarily that helps anyone else.
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Well a good scientist always takes an interest in someone else's research, even if it conflicts with his own conclusions. So to that end, I would - genuinely - like to know, in precise terms:
1. What you did
2. What the results were
3. What you concluded
4. The reasoning that drive your conclusions from your results.
And this is genuine. Data is data.
I don't think that this is the right place for the long version.
Furry Snuff; if you could possibly find a right place though I'd be very interested. I have a pressing need to form a consistent view of reality that can explain both your experience and mine, but to do that I need to understand your experience and associated thought processes. See the paper, not just the Abstract, if you will.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I gave up on a consistent view of reality a few years ago. It just doesn't work, well, not for me at any rate. There seem to be different levels or areas of reality, with their own rules and components, and they sort of mesh together, and sometimes they don't.
The most obvious one is the 'inner world', but then that in itself has different areas. I remember that Jung related the notion of God to an inner image, but after that, it becomes complicated, and individual. I end up with something bespoke.
--------------------
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
