Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fundamental Atheism and the Conflicting Ideas Problem.
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 31 of 134 (197165)
04-06-2005 3:00 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by RAZD
04-05-2005 9:16 PM


Re: but
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 6
And when you have decided which you mean, you can explain why you keep switching bewtween the two definitions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 04-05-2005 9:16 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 04-06-2005 7:39 AM PaulK has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 32 of 134 (197203)
04-06-2005 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by PaulK
04-06-2005 3:00 AM


Re: but
I think you need to go back and re-read
msg#1 writes:
First lets define "Fundamental Atheism" as:
The belief that the tenets of atheism are literally true, and that the belief is based on logic and rational thinking after reviewing the applicable evidence.
The fundamentalist rejects the notion that the {world view} needs to change when any such conflict occurs, thus when a {concept} conflicts with the {world view} the {concept} is rejected: it cannot be true.
gosh, first you ask for clarification, then you complain that the clarification is worded different than the original? the intent is clearly in the first post, and the 6th, and the 18th, and ...

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by PaulK, posted 04-06-2005 3:00 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by PaulK, posted 04-06-2005 10:32 AM RAZD has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 33 of 134 (197222)
04-06-2005 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by RAZD
04-06-2005 7:39 AM


Re: but
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 04-06-2005 7:39 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 04-06-2005 7:58 PM PaulK has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 34 of 134 (197261)
04-06-2005 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
04-03-2005 3:54 PM


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 with
I 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 04-03-2005 3:54 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by RAZD, posted 04-06-2005 8:04 PM PaulK has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 35 of 134 (197340)
04-06-2005 7:58 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by PaulK
04-06-2005 10:32 AM


Re: but
the only conclusion that I can reach is that this is the conclusion you want to reach, and are forcing the issue to get there, regardless of the evidence.
{edited to finish sentence}
This message has been edited by RAZD, 04*06*2005 07:00 PM

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by PaulK, posted 04-06-2005 10:32 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by PaulK, posted 04-07-2005 2:25 AM RAZD has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 36 of 134 (197344)
04-06-2005 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by PaulK
04-06-2005 1:17 PM


wrong again
what you are ascerting is that it is rational to believe
you are not ascerting that it is rational to know
the point here is distinguishing between belief and knowledge.
now tell me that you absolutely unequivocatively undeniably know that there is a red car on the M1 at the instant that you posted your message.
just for starters.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by PaulK, posted 04-06-2005 1:17 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by PaulK, posted 04-07-2005 2:38 AM RAZD has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 37 of 134 (197373)
04-07-2005 2:25 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by RAZD
04-06-2005 7:58 PM


Re: but
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by RAZD, posted 04-06-2005 7:58 PM RAZD has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 38 of 134 (197376)
04-07-2005 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by RAZD
04-06-2005 8:04 PM


Sicne even the definitions of atheism you choose to use mention only belief and not knowledge:
atheism - n
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
atheism - n
1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God [syn: godlessness] [ant: theism]
2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
And your (current) definition of "fundamental atheist" likewise mentions only belief and not knowledge
The belief that the tenets of atheism are literally true, and that the belief is based on logic and rational thinking after reviewing the applicable evidence.
The issue is belief alone. Knowledge doesn't enter the picture.
Let me paint the picture
If, 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by RAZD, posted 04-06-2005 8:04 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by RAZD, posted 04-07-2005 7:59 PM PaulK has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 39 of 134 (197558)
04-07-2005 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by PaulK
04-07-2005 2:38 AM


PaulK writes:
The issue is belief alone. Knowledge doesn't enter the picture.
Except the fundamental atheist thinks it is knowledge
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
in another post writes:
And since I'm not letting you get away with it you throw baseless accusations at me.
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. "All {A} is {B}" does not mean that "All {B} is {A}"
earlier writes:
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.
But that is just exactly the crux of the matter about not having proof that {A} exists nor that {A} does not exist. You can say what you believe is likely, but you cannot say that you know whether {A} exists or not. I notice you did not answer about the car.
I have no problem with atheists that do not believe in god, but I do take exception to anyone claiming that they know it is the truth and not just belief, just as I take exception to anyone claiming that they know that some religious creed or other is the truth.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by PaulK, posted 04-07-2005 2:38 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by PaulK, posted 04-08-2005 2:38 AM RAZD has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 40 of 134 (197606)
04-08-2005 2:38 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by RAZD
04-07-2005 7:59 PM


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 distinction
And 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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by RAZD, posted 04-07-2005 7:59 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by RAZD, posted 04-08-2005 9:22 PM PaulK has replied

Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 134 (197638)
04-08-2005 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
04-03-2005 3:54 PM


If we define fundamental atheism as:
The belief that the tenets of atheism are literally true, and that the belief is based on logic and rational thinking after reviewing the applicable evidence.
Then that makes me a fundamental atheist, I suppose, and I would agree with PaulK that this does not mean that I know God doesn't exist, at least not in the absolute philosophical sense you seem to be driving at. Indeed, because we can't absolutely say for certain that the rules of logic are time invariant, we end up in all sorts of knots, if we follow this route. I go through life having adopted the language that I say I know something if I have about 95% confidence in it (don't ask how I calculate the 95%) or I might say it for impact. This way, I can say stuff like "I know the Sun will rise tomorrow" with breezy confidence. Under this scheme, whether I know God doesn't exist or not is a toughie - philosophically, I'd say I didn't know, but politically (for expediency perhaps) I might say I did know.
Are you sure that the fundamental atheists you've been in contact with have been giving you their philosophical as opposed to their political position?
My belief in no Gods derives from 2 aspects:
1) the lack of evidence for a God
in this regard, I would probably agree with agnostics
2) positive evidence that there is no God
and this is where I differ from agnostics. As positive evidence I might cite things like:
- the incoherency of God as a concept
- religion as a social meme and its cultural significance (& psychological impact) up to and including now
- contradictions between various religions about the nature of this God
etc
Each of which probably deserves its own forum.
Now, none of the above in (2) is proof positive that God that does not exist, but it does offer a rational basis for why one might take that position.
I weigh up these facts and decide that on balance, God is a man-made concept. Others may balance these facts deifferently or have access to more information than me so decide differently, but that doesn't mean that I'm being irrational.
A lack of evidence by itself is not, as you say, enough reason to believe that something does not exist. But there may well be rational reasons for believing that that thing does not exist (e.g there's no evidence for Santa Claus, but I'm aSanta-ist as well - I don't see this as a faith position).
PE
This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 04-08-2005 07:30 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 04-03-2005 3:54 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by RAZD, posted 04-08-2005 9:54 PM Primordial Egg has replied

PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 6873 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 42 of 134 (197686)
04-08-2005 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by RAZD
04-04-2005 9:12 PM


Re: Note: the dictionary defines atheism as a belief.
quote:
no tenets?
tenet n.
An opinion, doctrine, or principle held as being true by a person or especially by an organization. See Synonyms at doctrine.
Tenet from Merriam/Webster
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, he holds, from tenEre to hold
People believe they should not believe in certain things. It is impossible to divest of belief.
Perhaps your formula is too simple? Occasionally, a higher education eliminates all common sense and shoes must be tied by someone else.
Here we see fine examples of the horse and water theory.

Pascal's Wager......nice try.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 04-04-2005 9:12 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by RAZD, posted 04-08-2005 9:07 PM PecosGeorge has not replied

mick
Member (Idle past 4987 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 43 of 134 (197746)
04-08-2005 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by RAZD
04-04-2005 9:12 PM


Re: Note: the dictionary defines atheism as a belief.
Okay, I think I've worked out the problem.
I also specified that to be a "fundamentalist atheist" one had to hold that this position was literally true. And as pointed out in the original post, this is just as {irrational\illogical} as the fundamentalist theist that thinks the existence of god is literally true beyond mere belief.
I agree with the first sentence - as an atheist I hold certain opinions to be literally true. It's the second part that is the problem. The reason that the fundamental theist is irrational/illogical is because he holds an opinion despite evidence suggesting that his opinion is unwarranted.
this is what makes the atheist "better" (at least in terms of his rationality) than the theist - the atheist is typically punished for holding opinions that are unwarranted. Whereas the theist is rewarded for doing so.
That's why the opinions of atheists are often far more worthy than the opinions of theists.
mick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 04-04-2005 9:12 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by RAZD, posted 04-08-2005 9:40 PM mick has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 44 of 134 (197795)
04-08-2005 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by PecosGeorge
04-08-2005 1:14 PM


Re: Note: the dictionary defines atheism as a belief.
and some, like cinderella's sisters
think the shoe fits.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by PecosGeorge, posted 04-08-2005 1:14 PM PecosGeorge has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 45 of 134 (197796)
04-08-2005 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by PaulK
04-08-2005 2:38 AM


PaulK writes:
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.
still making that conclusion. and yet when you gave a topic that you have expressed an opinion on the absolute existence thereof you have said:
... lets me conclude that the first is very likely true, while the second is very likely false.
very likely {true\false} ... does not mean literally {true\false}
this gets back to
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
and deciding that (2) is literally true in spite of the logical vacuum this requires.
lets go back to "The belief that the tenets of atheism are literally true, and that the belief is based on logic and rational thinking after reviewing the applicable evidence."
literally adv.
1. In a literal manner; word for word: translated the Greek passage literally.
2. In a literal or strict sense: Don't take my remarks literally.
you claim you "do NOT claim to know that God does not exist" ... so how do you get to saying it is literally true if you don't claim that the tenent "god does not exist" is word for word true?
you can believe it is "very likely true" but that is not the same as stating that it is true.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by PaulK, posted 04-08-2005 2:38 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by PaulK, posted 04-10-2005 2:51 PM RAZD has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024