Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fundamental Atheism and the Conflicting Ideas Problem.
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1 of 134 (196486)
04-03-2005 3:54 PM


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.
This is to distinguish this sub-group from the broader group atheism, defined as:
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
The fact is that atheism is based on belief and thus taking this belief as fundamental truth makes it fundamentalism on the same order as fundamental literalist YEC beliefs.
Now let us consider the problem of "Conflicting Ideas:"
Everybody has a {world view} that is a conceptual map of reality: they have an idea of what the {real universe} is like, based on their {beliefs, experiences, ideas and what they have learned}. Some of these {world views} are better than others in actually mapping concepts to points of reality, and the better they are the less conflict there is between any concept and reality.
Problems with the conceptual map occur when a conflict arises between the {world view} and a {concept}: either the {concept} is rejected as "nonsense" or it is incorporated into a revised {world view}
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.
Obviously on these forums we see that YEC and other absolutist literal fundies have this problem with several branches of science wherein a line is crossed that conflicts with their {world view} and the {concept} is rejected, but the same thing happens when this conflict occurs with any other fundamentalist {world view} when the notion of changing the {world view} is rejected.
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.
The fundamental atheist also uses a lot of the same kinds of arguments that a fundamental YEC uses: argument from incredulity, strawman examples, claiming that {this one example (an "exception to the rule")} proves the whole concept is wrong, deflecting the topic to other points altogether, etcetera, etcetera. What they don't do is answer the question (even to themselves).
It is worth noting that not one theist had issue with that post, and I take this to be evidence that the available theists knew that they believed "(1) Yes {A} exists" but also understood that this belief was based on faith and not fact (and thus not constrained to meet the test of logic). I assume that there are also several atheists that recognize that their belief that "(2) No {A} does not exist" is based on faith and not logic. Both these groups have world views where faith exists aside from logic (and Agnostics are sitting pretty in the cat-bird seat).
Enjoy.
note to admin: I am thinking {Faith and Belief} forum for this
EvC Forum: Faith and Belief
while it is an outgrowth of {DHA's Wager} it is not a continuation of that thread or any debates there, but is to focus on the concepts of {fundamental atheism} and {concepts in conflict with a world view}

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Chiroptera, posted 04-03-2005 4:21 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 04-03-2005 5:07 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 15 by Hangdawg13, posted 04-04-2005 11:40 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 34 by PaulK, posted 04-06-2005 1:17 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 41 by Primordial Egg, posted 04-08-2005 8:24 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 58 by Phat, posted 04-11-2005 6:19 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 5 of 134 (196517)
04-03-2005 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Chiroptera
04-03-2005 4:21 PM


ummm,
limiting the discussion to one specific god is another form of {equivocation\strawman} on the question.
this is reducing the question of {does any god exist} to {does one very specific example of a god exist that I define in such a way that it can't exist}
It is a reasonable assumption, then, that this deity would provide clear, unambiguous evidence that it exists.
I agree with that, but note that this position is consistent with being a theist (of several varieties), deist, agnostic and atheist, not just the atheist.
"The universe was created by an unimaginably powerful being at some point in the past, for some purpose of its own." ... I agree that this statement, ... Although I do not believe the statement is true, I nonetheless cannot disprove it,
Actually the "some purpose of it's own" is not necessary: perhaps it was just an accidentally hard exhalation during sex or something ... but in essence that is what I believe -- that god transformed self into universe.
What I understand you are saying is: that "(3) I don't know" is the logical answer, but I believe "(2) No {A} does not exist" because of my faith that this is so, and that absent any evidence to the contrary I will continue to do so.
I have no problem with that, as noted above, and because my personal answer is: that "(3) I don't know" is the logical answer, but I believe "(1) Yes {A} does (or did) exist" because of my faith that this is so, and that absent any evidence to the contrary I will continue to do so.
enjoy.

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 3 by Chiroptera, posted 04-03-2005 4:21 PM Chiroptera has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 6 of 134 (196518)
04-03-2005 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by PaulK
04-03-2005 5:07 PM


Or should the definition be restricted to those who hold that it is certain that no God or gods existed ?
I thought that was spelled out with "that the tenets of atheism are literally true"
not just true in general but (absolutely) literally true
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}?
thanks

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 4 by PaulK, posted 04-03-2005 5:07 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by PaulK, posted 04-03-2005 6:28 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 8 of 134 (196556)
04-03-2005 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by PaulK
04-03-2005 6:28 PM


but
I never said it did
absolutely, incontestably, other modifiers as appropriate ...
that the belief that there is no god is literally true
that is the nature of fundamentalism n'est pas?
This message has been edited by RAZD, 04*03*2005 07:59 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 7 by PaulK, posted 04-03-2005 6:28 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by PaulK, posted 04-04-2005 2:38 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 11 of 134 (196734)
04-04-2005 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by PaulK
04-04-2005 2:38 AM


Re: but
no, I quite clearly modified literal with absolutely

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by PaulK, posted 04-04-2005 2:38 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by PaulK, posted 04-05-2005 2:45 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 12 of 134 (196737)
04-04-2005 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by contracycle
04-04-2005 6:42 AM


Note: the dictionary defines atheism as a belief.
spoken, predictably, like a true fundamentalist atheist who is convinced that his position is both logical and literally correct.
I could easily rest my case.
Notice that this particular statement:
contracycle writes:
Nope. Becuase there is no REASON whatsoever to think A exists.
was predicted:
The fundamental atheist also uses a lot of the same kinds of arguments that a fundamental YEC uses: argument from incredulity,
as were the strawmen, with the standard (for contracycle, based on my experience) ad hominum thrown in for good measure.
notice that if he thinks he is being insulted, then he is putting on the shoe and finding that it fits.
enjoy.
This message has been edited by RAZD, 04*04*2005 06:36 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 10 by contracycle, posted 04-04-2005 6:42 AM contracycle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by mick, posted 04-04-2005 8:14 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 14 of 134 (196762)
04-04-2005 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by mick
04-04-2005 8:14 PM


Re: Note: the dictionary defines atheism as a belief.
first off, note that I did note include all atheists in the group, and was very specific about that.
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.
Going back to the original post:
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
Ooops: looks like atheism has at least one tenet: the belief or doctrine that there is no god ... your evidence that contracycle is "correct" just evaporated.
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.
Note also, that the definition specifies that atheism is a belief, this is not me changing the meaning or trying to make atheism less than it is, but my pointing out what it is to those trying to make more of it than is there.
Your point about skepticism is interesting, but if you really look at it, the only logical position for a skeptic to take is agnosticism: skeptical of both the existence and the non-existence.
notice the scorn in contracycles post regarding agnostics: this is someone who feels his {world view} is threatened by a {concept} but cannot admit it, so he rejects the idea as nonsense.
enjoy.

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 13 by mick, posted 04-04-2005 8:14 PM mick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by contracycle, posted 04-05-2005 5:21 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 42 by PecosGeorge, posted 04-08-2005 1:14 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 43 by mick, posted 04-08-2005 6:33 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 18 of 134 (196870)
04-05-2005 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by PaulK
04-05-2005 2:45 AM


Re: but
oh come now.
my msg #6 writes:
not just true in general but (absolutely) literally true
(absolutely) literal
is not (absolutely true)
and a belief that it is (absolutely) literally true does not make it absolute truth either
do you have a point somewhere? I'm having trouble understanding what your particular problem is. delete (absolutely) from post #6 if you object to the word - it doesn't change it in my mind at all, or the intent of the post.
or is this the kind of misdirection away from the topic that is the other typical approach to a (verboten to fundies) topic?

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 16 by PaulK, posted 04-05-2005 2:45 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by PaulK, posted 04-05-2005 8:29 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 19 of 134 (196871)
04-05-2005 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by contracycle
04-05-2005 5:21 AM


Re: Note: the dictionary defines atheism as a belief.
more strawmen
contracycle writes:
Now, while I know that theists sometimes like to paint atheism as a sort of conspiracy by unwitting dupes of satan to fool the public,
not the case at all. LOL. you are assuming a belief in "satan" now to further your argument.
atheism is just a belief that there is no god.
that doesn't make the belief any more factual than any belief that there is a god.
perhaps you could show us how agnosticism is not logical? and why a skeptic should not be an agnostic?
enjoy.

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 17 by contracycle, posted 04-05-2005 5:21 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by contracycle, posted 04-05-2005 9:03 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 25 by mick, posted 04-05-2005 8:48 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 26 by mick, posted 04-05-2005 8:57 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 20 of 134 (196872)
04-05-2005 7:44 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Hangdawg13
04-04-2005 11:40 PM


Re: Bravo
it's hard to argue with fundamentalist believers that refuse to accept certain arguments as even possible ... right?

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 15 by Hangdawg13, posted 04-04-2005 11:40 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 24 of 134 (197085)
04-05-2005 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by PaulK
04-05-2005 7:47 AM


msg #1 writes:
The fundamental atheist also uses a lot of the same kinds of arguments that a fundamental YEC uses: argument from incredulity, strawman examples, claiming that {this one example (an "exception to the rule")} proves the whole concept is wrong, deflecting the topic to other points altogether, etcetera, etcetera. What they don't do is answer the question (even to themselves).
color for emPHASis.
{added by edit}
they are missing "new age" music on their site ... seems to me like another IDist kind of approach? {{we won't define the <> we believe in but start a whole movement based on it}}? that's my impression anyway. what do you think?
This message has been edited by RAZD, 04*05*2005 08:21 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 21 by PaulK, posted 04-05-2005 7:47 AM PaulK has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 27 of 134 (197093)
04-05-2005 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by PaulK
04-05-2005 8:29 AM


Re: but
I still do not see your problem.
the fundamental atheist will reject the idea that his {world view} needs to change to incorporate the new idea, this leave his with rejecting the concept as nonsense.
as I have said before, it is okay to {say\think\feel} that:
msg#5 writes:
"(3) I don't know" is the logical answer, but I believe "(2) No {A} does not exist" because of my faith that this is so, and that absent any evidence to the contrary I will continue to do so.
what this {msg#1} definition amounts to is a distinction between two kinds of atheists:
one that recognizes what they know and the limits of that knowledge, mixed with recognition of what they believe, and mixed with a skeptical awareness of the differences between the two. this is your common "just don't believe in god" atheist. they also know that they do not know, that it is belief and not knowledge. they are willing to change their {world view} if the evidence warrents it.
the other apparently fails to see the distinction between belief and knowledge and convince themselves that they know there is no god. these have also been called "anti-theists" because they are usually quite verbal about their distain for all theists, agnostics, and uncommitted atheists ... very much like the fundamentalist christian is distainful of all atheists, agnostics, theists and uncommitted christians ...
my distinction in msg #6 is again between these two groups, the common definition atheist and the fundamental atheist.

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 22 by PaulK, posted 04-05-2005 8:29 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by PaulK, posted 04-06-2005 3:00 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 28 of 134 (197100)
04-05-2005 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by contracycle
04-05-2005 9:03 AM


Re: Note: the dictionary defines atheism as a belief.
contracycle writes:
No, I am reporting to you things that christians have said to me about atheists.
So you are ascribing to me the comments of other people who happen to have beliefs quite different from mine, and you think this is a valid form of debate? And here I was, worried that you had found me out, pushing my nefarious deist agenda onto an unsuspecting population - determined to convert them all to avid followers of the deist "belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation" and especially in the cultish tenet that everyone decides what they believe ... darn.
contracycle writes:
Nope. Atheism is the absence of theism. That is all. Thats what the word says.
Actually it isn't. I have posted the definition twice. The definition specifies "the doctrine or belief that there is no God"
agnosticism is also an absence of theism as are some forms of deism (specifically ones that believe that god no longer exists), so obviously that is insufficient as a definition of atheist.
But even beyond that, in spite of your definition you are taking exception to my subcatgegory definition of "fundamental atheist" which definitly specifies that it is about believing that "there is no god" is literally true, as opposed to the common atheist that "just doesn't believe in god" (which is close to your definition). If you are a common atheist then there is no need to get all bent out of shape over the definition of "fundamental atheist" and if you are a fundamental atheist then using a lesser definition than you subscribe to is equivocating.
I happen to think you are equivocating, but that is my opinion.
your blindness to agnosticism is amazing. the milk for the brownies shows just how much you misunderstand the concept: it appears you think that any doubt about the non-existence of {A} is equal to a fervant belief in the existence and worship of {A}. You only allow (1) and (2) to be answers and deny that (3) has any validity.
again this appears to be rejecting as "nonsense" any idea that conflicts with your {world view} just as you did with sexual selection in humans.
perhaps you would like to answer (1) (2) or (3) to the following:
(A) UFO's
(B) Yeti
(C) Sasquatch
(D) Nessie
(E) Dark matter
(F) Dark energy
(G) Dark gravity
(H) Life on other planets
(I) Intelligent life on other planets
(J) Intelligent life on this planet
(K) That 6 times 9 is 42
Some people think there is more evidence for each of these than there is for your brownies ...
enjoy.

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 23 by contracycle, posted 04-05-2005 9:03 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by contracycle, posted 04-11-2005 7:37 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 29 of 134 (197105)
04-05-2005 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by mick
04-05-2005 8:48 PM


Re: Note: the dictionary defines atheism as a belief.
mick writes:
I'd still like to get back the idea of scepticism.
Then start a thread on it. Meanwhile, in answer to the argument from incredulity:
Deism that is based in scepticism is far superior to atheism in that it is at least a consistent world view. As an atheist, you have basically no idea of which god to not believe in. you can not believe in allah on monday, jesus on tuesday, odin on wednesday, and all of the above for the rest of the week. An Deist, on the other hand, will tend to find that his beliefs are consistent with the rest of his intellectual outlook and his experience of the universe, from monday to sunday. it's a nice feeling, you should try it!
Perhaps you need to understand more to be more understanding.
Enjoy.

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 25 by mick, posted 04-05-2005 8:48 PM mick has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 30 of 134 (197108)
04-05-2005 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by mick
04-05-2005 8:57 PM


more strawmen examples ...
I am a deist. it's in the signature. and I have no problem with not believing in many things ... including dark matter and energy (I'm holding out for dark gravity).
I also recognize what I believe is different from what I know.

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 26 by mick, posted 04-05-2005 8:57 PM mick 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