|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Atheists can't hold office in the USA? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
nwr writes: And what about those of us who think that "God" is a muddled concept? And what about those of us who think that the concept of belief is muddled? Those that think that way are quite right - given the messed up thinking in this area, confusion is a sane response. But it does make them atheists because they don't believe in god(s). They're just more confused than most because they don't even know what they don't believe in.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Moose writes:
Maybe we can say we know what god is not. Not with absolute confidence, but with a large amount of evidence to support what god is not. So, if someone asks you "Do you know that god does not exist?", the first reply should be "what is god?". Sure, i've only been talking in vague deist terms about belief - as soon as you ask 'which god' and 'which version of which god', things become easier to have certainty about. It's that 'you only believe in one less god than I do' idea. (Which you'd think would make believers stop and pause to think for a moment - but it doesn't.)Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
AZ writes:
So you say. But we are dealing with human beings here. The entire range of (il)logic and (ir)rationality is available to us. You should not be surprised to hear someone say,"I don't know if there is a god or not. Sometimes I think there may be and sometimes I think maybe not. I don't know." Well ok, but those people are simply atheists one day (don't know) and theists the next (do know).
That is your personal assessment of your knowledge. I agree, but so what. If someone can bring objective knowledge to me then I'd become a theist to. Objective knowledge of god does not exist. Someone saying that they know god, is not objective knowledge.
Others disagree. Others know there is a god, or some gods, because the bible says so, because life needs a purpose, because DNA is too complex, because god has revealed mystical truths to them in prayer and meditation. Nothing ever said this knowledge, this Gnosis, had to be rational. Let's face it. For a huge, large and really big portion of the humans on this planet rationality does not enter into the thought process. Nobody says knowledge has to be rational? Really? Let's just still with knowledge of god needing to be objective to have any power to convince - I am not persuaded by someone telling me that they have personal knowledge of god, therefore god exists. They simply believe. Neither is DNA or bible stories knowledge of god - they are what they are - chemicals and writing.
So, irrational as you may see it, there are theists and there are atheists. Some with strong "knowledge" informing this belief, some not so strong. And, yes, some on the fence bending this way or that depending on the emotional needs of the moment. If they have a belief then they are theists, if they do not, they are atheists. How conviced they are of their choices is a seperate issue - neither are agnostic.
Even in the most twisted irrational of minds, how can someone state that they believe a god exists but then don't believe such a god exists?- My head hurts. Mine tooJe suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
RAZD writes: Can I ask what you find objectionable in saying "I don't know" when in fact you don't know? I have no objection at all to saying that I don't know, when I don't. However, when the question is "do you believe in god?" I know the answer. What is your fear of owning to a belief or lack of belief?
It is a lack of knowledge about the answer. I don't disbelieve, but I don't know what I believe. Then you can not believe and are therefore an atheist. Obviously.
The "don't know" response means "don't know" and nothing more ... Really? How surprising! You're really overcomplicating this - and obviously not reading the other posts I've made. Agnosticism can't exist when applied to belief - people either believe or they do not. It has nothing to do with information.
Another answer could be "sometimes" ... Correct and when you sometimes believe you are a theist and when you sometimes don't believe you are an atheist. In neither situation is someone an agnostic.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Ringo writes:
There are British subjects and there are people who are not British subjects - British and aBritish. There are people who understrand binary and people who don't understand binary - binarists and abinarists.The two concepts are not directly related. Your claim that there is nobody who doesn't understand binary is absurd. That was pretty random.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Theo writes: Yes they are because the feel that they do not know. If they don't know, they don't believe. It's not terrbly complicated.
Faith is a gnostic Theist. Faith knows there is a god. Faith is delusional but Faith self defines as a gnostic theist. Yes, I've often heard her say that. Not. Look I totally understand the argument, I just say that it's total semantic baloney. People either believe in a God or they don't. If they say they're not sure, they can't, by definition and the simple meaning of words, believe in god. Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
DW writes: But what about the third group, a large one, that simply couldn't care less? Those that couldn't care less, obviously do not believe.
Imagine some kind of over-blown sports event that inexplicably excites much of the national or regional or world population, possibly because it gets hyped-up all out of all proportion. Two opposing teams. Applying your argument, everybody must support either one team or the other; there can be no third position. But there is a third position, the only sane one: "I couldn't possibly care less!" If they couldn't care less, then they do not believe and are therefore atheistic.
But then none of that has anything to do with agnosticism, which is an entirely different question from atheism. They are not the same thing! Of course they're not the same thing! In matters of belief, agnosticism is irrelevant. It concerns itself with knowledge not belief.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
dwise1 writes: But we don't need an analogy, because we have real-world people who do not fit your model. People who are not interested in religion, couldn't care less, and yet identify as belonging to a religious group. A common scenario would be one who grew up in a church, had put in his pew-time, and is not inclined to continue to participate while still self-identifying. Couldn't care less, but still not an atheist. How do you know what he actually believes? He could be believe or not. The answer to the question 'do you believe in god?' Is 'yes' or or 'no'.The answer to the question 'does god exist?' Can rationally only be 'I don't know'. Though of course you'll get the irrational others too. Bored now......Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Correct - the sports analogy is 'do you support the Jets?' The 'I couldn't care less' response is a defacto 'no'.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Dwise1 writes: How do you know what he actually believes? I do not know what he believes. If you read what I say, that is what I say.
I went with the actual evidence, his own testimony that he believes that what he was taught as a child is true and that settles that. Then he either believes or he doesn't. If he doesn't know if he believes or not, then obviously he doesn't believe. If he couldn't care less, then he doesn't believe. I'm failing to see the problem with this line of logic.
You are pushing your own idea in spite of the actual evidence. I'm not pushing any ideas nor is there any evidence, it's purely an logic/linguistic/definitional argument. Not that I'm particularly fond of those - but in this case I really can't see the difficulty.
Like the Two Model Approach which is the principal tool of "creation science", you are creating a false dichotomy by artificially insisting that there are two and only two mutually exclusive positions, thus excluding the other positions that do exist. Such as abstaining. Such as not caring. Your pet model is of no interest to me - you have it wrong, it's a one choice model - belief or not. Do you support the Jets or not? It is not a choice between the Jets and the Saints. Or whatever.
Not knowing is not a reliable predictor for atheism. Nor is abstaining from deciding. Nor is not having any interest. Now you're getting to the point. Not knowing has been a method of avoiding a difficult societal position. I am an atheist but I also do not know whether there is a god or not. I believe that there is not. My argument is that everybody is agnostic - or should be - because they do not have objective knowledge of god. But there are those that move beyond knowledge and claim a belief. They either believe in god - theist - or they do not - atheist. Those that can not move beyond knowledge are not stuck in a limbo, they do not believe by definition. If you ask a so called agnostic if they believe in god, they MUST say no. If they do not believe, they are not agnostic, they are atheist.
And agnostics do indeed exist! Sure they do. I'm one. We all are.
Also, you are thinking like a "true Christian". You pose the question as "Do you believe in God?", which only asks about YHWH. To a "true Christian", not believing in YHWH would make one an atheist, but that would include those who believe in a different god. Remember, the gods are many. But if one believes in any of the other gods, then he would in fact not be an atheist regardless of how much others misunderstand atheism. I care not what god you believe or don't believe in. The question about belief in god does not identify which god. Try this. You're wife asks "do you love me?" Can you be agnostic? If you answer "I don't know" does she accept this as a perfectly reasonable position or does she think "he can't say he loves me, so he doesn't love me." Belief is a positive statement. If you can not say that you belive in a god, then you do not. By the simple meaning of words.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
NoNukes writes:
That's not a complicated idea, but surely humans are more complicated than your idea gives credit for. They sure are. This is because belief is an emotion, not a logical position.
A gambler cannot actually know what numbers are going to show up next on a roulette wheel. Yet he can be absolutely convinced (believe) that he is on the cusp of a winning spree. So at that point, he is a theist - regardless of his logical error.
Of course the odds are that his state of belief won't survive the next few spins. But when it comes to God or gods, the resolution of inconsistencies between knowledge and belief may never come. Believers can rationalize away just about any discouraging turn of events. They can rationalise in every direction and they do. But I still say that a state of 'don't know' is a lack of belief and don't see how it could be otherwise.
Belief and doubt can coexist in the mind. And 'knowledge' or knowing is something not precisely defined. Do I actually know that fusion occurs in the star Proxima Centauri?. I certainly believe such to be the case. I wold be utterly astonished to find out that such is not the case. On the other hand, perhaps my impression regarding the sun is quite a bit different. I don't think belief and doubt do coexist - but I do think that they can switch from one to the other. As for Centauri - that is a matter of fact and knowledge, not belief which is an emotional state.
I imagine that it is difficult for a gnostic atheist to even entertain the idea that someone else can know something that the ga knows cannot be true. Not at all - assuming that i know what a ga is. A lot of atheists started out as believers so they fully understand the state of that delusion. The expression 'the king has no clothes' is a precise description of the lifing of the belief veil.
But I'd label that a failure of introspection rather than some absolute truth of the atheist's position. Then you would be incorrect and also a tad patronising.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Cat Sci writes:
Maybe you can explain to me why the term "Atheism" is the word that you prefer to use? First off, thanks for moving the discussion on beyond the trite. I use the word atheist because it's the only one we have to describe a lack of belief in god. But I'd prefer it if there was no such word. You know, the idea that there is no word for a lack of belief in fairies and leprechauns. To me the idea of a god - at least the theistic kind - is simply bizarre
What's wrong with the word "Agnosticism"? To describe what? It doesn't work when describing belief. It only works when describing what it is intended for - knowledge. The first is an emotional state, the second is factual information.
And I'm sticking within belief systems and not talking about knowledge. Then you are attempting to change the meaning of words.
Atheism has been redefined over the years and people have been moving from calling themselves agnostics to calling themselves atheists. Has it? it's not a hard concept to grasp is it? It's hard to define it another way. I suspect those that called themselves agnostics were actually atheists all along but the social stigma of saying it has declined. It was always a false position.
I think its for shock and impact. People gasp. Why do you think it is? I think you may have hit on why eveyone here is struggling so hard with a very simple concept. There is absolutely no shock value of declaring yourself to be an atheist in the UK. To the extent that it never happens. I might as well declare myslelf male. Atheists are not a shocking thing. From what I can gather, that is not the situation in the USA.
People these days, like you, say that atheism is simply a lack of a positive belief in god and that it is not necessarily a positive claim of the non-existence of god. I agree that it can work for that usage, but I don't understand why it is preferable? Preferrable to what? i am not agnsotic, I do not believe in god.
Atheism used to be a positive position that god does not exist. It was not simply a lack of belief in god, that was agnosticism. Atheism, always was, and is, a lack of belief in god(s). No more, no less. The definition was forced by the existence of believers. The term, in most atheist's eyes is redundant. In my case it is a positive statement, but in the case of those that say they don't know, it's purely definitional - they are default atheists.
Believes that there is a god = theism Believes that there is no god = atheism Doesn't believe either way = agnosticism Sure, except 'doesn't believe either way' normally resolved to 'don't know'. Which, in my opinion, was a polite excuse for an embarassing lack of belief.
Now you're coming along and saying that theists believe in god and everyone else is an atheist. How post-modern of me.
And there are no agnostics. Why? Is it just an effort to be more inclusive? No, it's just the meaning of words.
Isn't that you? Or do you take the positive position that god does not exist? No it's not me. My position is that knowledge of god is impossible - or at least it has been so far - so we are all agnostic. But I go further and say that I also believe that god does not exist. All we 'know', is whether we believe or not.
Doesn't removing agnosticism from the spectrum and insisting on a theism/atheism dichotomy only add confusion to the issue? No, it simplifies things. Two positions instead of three.
What's the reason for changing the definitions of these words? Honestly, I don't get it. I have not changed any definitions. The words have been misapplied, misunderstood and misused.
Well, expect for atheism being equated with immorality. That's not longer apt. It seems to be in some parts of the world. But that can't change the meaning of words only their perception. When Huxley spoke about being agnostic, he was actually declaring his atheism in couched, intellectual terms.
People typically go: Well, that's what the root means. theism = belief in god therefore a-theism is without a belief in god. But that M-W page shows that the greek word is atheos, which is godlessness. So that is a positive position and not just a lack of a positive position. Dunno. Don't care much. We know what we mean in English
Regarding the topic, I think it is that equating atheism with immorality that lead people to want to deny office to atheists. Agreed. It time we stood up and changed that ignorant viewpoint. It's not clear to me why an agnostic should be seen as any more moral though - an agnostic does not believe in god.
If someone was self-proclaimly immoral or wicked, I would have a problem having them in office as well. Turns out the term atheism isn't really the right word for that, but alas. :-)Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Hey Straggler, 9,998 posts, go for it chuck!
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Cat Sci writes:
Tangle says: Atheism, always was, and is, a lack of belief in god(s). No more, no less. Cat Sci: says I wholeheartedly disagree. How many dictionary quotes do you need? Do you need a Gallop poll? What's you're problem? If we can't even agree that an atheist is someone that doesn't believe in god, the rest is hopeless.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9514 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Cat Sci writes: You know there's other atheists out there, yeah? There's no 'types' of atheists. We're not a group of people with a common cause. We don't have churches and dogmas. Our only point in common is a lack of belief in God(s).
The more shock-artist type. The stuff you see on /r/atheism. Most likely 20-ish Americans. I'm sure there are arseholes that are also atheists.
How do you feel about bringing those folks into the fold? They're kinda dicks, dontcha think? Or at least, they're trying to be. I can expound on this. There is no 'fold'. I'm just as likely to find them dicks as you are.
So can you agree that the term "agnostic", as used and despite what it really means, does have a place in this discussion? Can't it be better than a term that describes everyone but the crazy? Agnosticism is a 19th century invention which was designed to carve out an intellectual position about a lack of belief - a position that was very contentious at the time. It actually has no real meaning. It's used by those who find that they don't have an actual belief. If they did have a belief they would be, wait for it, believers. This is what Huxley actually thought
When I reached intellectual maturity and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; Christian or a freethinker; I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until, at last, I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis"—had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion ... So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic". It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. ... To my great satisfaction the term took. What he's saying is that he can not believe in God. He is therefore an atheist who invented what he thinks is a clever way of not accepting it. He's confusing knowledge about god - for which the only rational position is agnosticism - with belief, which is an emotional, not an intellectual, logical state. Do you love your wife? Do you support the Jets? Do you believe in God? If these questions can't be answered in the positive, then they are negative. There's no meally-mouthed middle way is there? Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024