Fundamental Atheism and the Conflicting Ideas Problem.

Firstly, to hold a belief is to accept it as true.So, if on a rational consideration of the evidence someone came to the belief that no God or gods existed - even if such a belief was held tentatively - would you consider that "fundamental atheism" ?Or should the definition be restricted to those who hold that it is certain that no God or gods existed ?

I think you need to reconsider - "literal" doesn't mean "absolute".All it means is that the statement is to be taken at face value rather than as a metaphor, say.

Go back and read your Message 6 again. You clearly equate "literal" truth and "absolute" truth, which is clearly wrong.The issue about literalism and Biblical Fundamentalism is that many Christians accept that a literal reading of the creation stories in Genesis is not true, but hold that they are true in other ways (as allegory, say). The reason it is seen as unreasonable is because the scientific evidence is very much against the truth of a strict literal reading.

I think you need a course in better communication.Firstly,insisting that you were right all along to write "literal" instead of "absolute" does NOT modify the statement (just the opposite - it's a refusal to make the correction you implicitly agreed with).Secondly simply following "literal" with "(absolute)" simply claims that "literal" means "absolute". That is really only useful when clarifying possible meanings of the word - but "absolute" in the sense of "absolute certainty" (the usage relevant to this discussion) is NOT a possibly meaning of "literal".So to claim that you clearly modified "literal" with "absolutely" is wrong.

Since these guys consider it to be literally true that God does not exist are they "fundamental atheists" ?Sea of Faith Network | Home Page(Quotes are from A Reasonable Faith available on the above site) Yet the text goes on to insist that - despite taking the view that God does not literally exist - the Sea of Faith is not properly labelled as "atheism" let alone "Fundamental Atheism".

In Message 3 I asked if the definition of "fundamental atheism" should be restricted to those who were certain that God did not exist rahter than including those who tentatively held that the statement "God does not exist" was true in a literal sense.Your Message 6 was a reply to that and clearly indicated that you agreed to my suggestion, since you only quoted my suggested alternative and went on to state:

quote:

---

to hold a belief is to accept it as true according to the information available to date. the question is whether one is open to revising that opinion should evidence to the contrary become available: will the person revise their {world view} to incorporate the new information or will the new information be rejected as {nonsense}?

---

Which really has nothing to do with whether the statemnt "God does not exist" is read figuratively or literally.Yet now you have gone back on all that to state that you REALLY meant only that anyonw who beleives statement "God does not exist" read in an ABSOLUTELY literal sense shoudl be considered a "fundamental atheist" no matter how willing they might be to revise that view if further evidence became available. And you suggest that I am engaged in misdirection ?To repeat the point, "literal" is the wrong word, if you mean what you stated in Message 6. Is it really so hard to admit that you made one little mistake ?

My problem is that you keep changing your definition.Is a "fundamental atheist" one who simply believes that "no God or gods exist" is literally true. as you originally said and reaffirmed in Message 18 - the definition which includes even the members of the Sea of Faith movement.Or is it someone who has absolutely decided that no God or gods exist and will not reconsider under any circumstances as you said in Message 6And when you have decided which you mean, you can explain why you keep switching bewtween the two definitions.

Well so we've finally established over your protests to the contrary that a refusal to reassess the conclusion if new evidence is produced is NOT part of your definition of "fundamental atheist".Rather you claim that anyone who does fit the definition must so refuse. I think it is time for you to support that claim.

quote:

---

Take for instance, the following concept that was raised on the (now closed) {DHA's Wager} thread (click):

ABSENT proof that {A} exists AND
ABSENT proof that {A} does NOT exist

​

What is the most logical position:
(1) YES {A} exists! OR
(2) NO {A} does NOT exist! OR
(3) We don't know if {A} exists or not

(Note: the above is the original form of the concept, in later posts (3) was {modified\simplified} to "I don't know"

​

The fundamental atheist rejects the concept as valid because to be logically correct and an atheist {he/she/they} need to be able to pick both (2) and (3).

​

Thus we see the fundamental atheist insisting that there is a 4th answer "(4) none of the above because I need more information".

​

When you look at the actual meaning of what they are saying though, what you see is "I don't {have enough information to} know."

​

The fundamental atheist is really picking option (3) while insisting that {he/she/they} are not picking option (3), and this equivocation on the question is due to {his/her/their} fundamental desire to be able to pick (2) at the same time.

---

I beleive that it is likely that you have misunderstood the answer.The correct answer is that The question does not give enough information to decide. This answer rejects all of 1-3, instead asserting that there is no universal answer to all cases. This is, I suspect the answer that was intended.And it is an answer that I agree withI would assert that it is rational to believe that there is, at the time of writing, a red car on the M1.And also that it is rational to believe that at the time of writing there is not a red car on the planet Pluto.Choosing any of 1-3 as the answer forces us to deny one or both of these statements as I do not have proof that there is or is not a red car in either location. I do, however, have background knowledge that lets me conclude that the first is very likely true, while the second is very likely false. Yet the question ignores the issue of such background knowledge - as well as any evidence short of proof.

i.e. you can't support your claim so instead you rely on equivocation to "prove" it.And since I'm not letting you get away with it you throw baseless accusations at me.

Sicne even the definitions of atheism you choose to use mention only belief and not knowledge: And your (current) definition of "fundamental atheist" likewise mentions only belief and not knowledge The issue is belief alone. Knowledge doesn't enter the picture.Let me paint the pictureIf, after reviewing the evidence availabel to me I decide it is rational to hold the opinion God does not exist you insist that I must hold it as a nn absolute unquestionable belief - and now you are insisting that I must claim to know about it.At first I hoped it was just a mistake but now it looks like a deliberate dishonest attempt to label anyone who even tentatively beleives that there is no God as a fanatic.

quote:

---

PaulK writes:

​

The issue is belief alone. Knowledge doesn't enter the picture.

​

Except the fundamental atheist thinks it is knowledge

---

Do they ? On what do you base this claim since it is neither part of the definition nor logically implied by it.BTW I should point out that I know that your assertion is false since although I am a "fundamental atheist" by your definition I do NOT claim to know that God does not exist.

quote:

---

At first I hoped it was just a mistake but now it looks like a deliberate dishonest attempt to label anyone who even tentatively beleives that there is no God as a fanatic.

​

No, not at all, it is about separating out the (your word) "fanatic" atheists from the rest of the atheists. the ones who take it to extremes

---

If that were true you would have amended your definition so that it included only those who "go to extremes". The closest you came to that was Message 6 which reads as if you claim that your definition already did make the distinction - however you have since asserted that that was not what you intended, and have repeated the definition unchanged. By your own statements it is not only true that your definition is not limited to "fanatics" - that was your intent.The rest of your Message 1 then goes on to claim that all who fit the definition ARE "fanatics" presumably on the grounds of the label, even though the definition intentionally includes many who are not.

quote:

---

no, you keep coming to these conclusions as if I was claiming "fundamental atheism" applied to all atheists, when I have specifically drawn a line between the {normal, common, dictionary definition atheist} and the {subgroup} that thinks they know whether there is a red car on M1 or not.

---

That's an outright lie. Not only did you not make such a distinction you absolutely refused to make it, after I pointed out that your definition failed to include that distinctionAnd since I have already pointed out that according to the definitions you have offered it is belief that is the crux of the matter, not knowledge the rest of your post simply represents more dishonesty.This message has been edited by PaulK, 04-08-2005 08:05 AM

Since neither statement was meant in a figurative sense uou may insert "literally" into my assessment of each if you wish - it makes abolsutely no difference.I believe in the non-existence of Gods in a literal sense (just as the Sea of Faith movement does - except that they believe that God exists in a figurative sense).