Should atheism be recognised?

[Enmos]

Not at all. The fact that you cannot see colour [knowledge] should in no way preclude your having a favorite [existence]. Belief is distinct from evidence.

How would a blind man see again ?

 

[S.A.M.]

He doesn't.

 

[Enmos]

He doesn't.

So then your analogy is flawed.

 

[Tyler]

Not at all. The fact that you cannot see colour [knowledge] should in no way preclude your having a favorite [existence].

I'm pretty sure that's not an accurate analogy. Frankly, it sounds more like agnostic theism. Which is also a tenable position.

But the analogy doesn't hold. "Having a favourite" is an ontological statement on what exists in my mind. Whereas "not having experienced colour" (being blind from birth) is an ontological statement on what exists in my brain. They are both ontological statements*, not one ontological and one epistemological.

The appropriate analogy (using your subject) would be:

Ontologically Without-Experience-Of-Colour: Whereby someone was blind from birth.
Epistemologically Believing-Oneself-To-Have-Knowledge-Of(and furthermore, a preferred)-Colour: Whereby someone believes they can accurately picture, identify and use colour. (And furthermore, prefers one colour over all others.)


*I used 'mind' for one and 'brain' for the other, but I only did so in order for any dualists among us to be satisfied. Brain and mind might indeed be one thing, but it's irrelevant to our current question, so we need not settle the dualist problem.

 

[S.A.M.]

Its your thesis. I personally think that perception and reality are two sides of the same coin.

While the lack of perception would not confirm or deny the existence of any concept, without a position on the presence or absence of an object, its spurious to assign a perception to it.

 

[Tyler]

While the lack of perception would not confirm or deny the existence of any concept, without a position on the presence or absence of an object, its spurious to assign a perception to it.

I'm not too clear what you mean by perception. I'm also still not sure what you mean by "recognized".

It's not a matter of being my thesis, it's just a true fact. And again, I've yet to read any philosopher who argued otherwise. Epistemology and Ontology are different things.

In an atheists Set Of All Things That Exist, god or gods do not appear. In an Agnostics Set Of All Questions That Are Currently Answerable, whether or not there is a god(s) does not appear.

You don't see how these two things are compatible? Really?

Okay, try it with the alien exchange.

Set Of All Things That Exist, aliens do not appear.
Set Of All Questions That Are Currently Answerable, whether or not there are aliens does not appear.

Could you please show that these two are inconsistent? If they are inconsistent - as you assert - can you tell me which ones you think most people would agree and disagree with?

 

[S.A.M.]

I mean that when you simultaneously hold a position of agnosticism, then your atheism is a belief system, not a position of knowledge or perception.

Which contradicts your position on agnosticism. ie. if you believe there is no God, you cannot hold a position that he may or may not exist or that there is no way to know.

 

[Tyler]

not a position of knowledge or perception.

You're half right. Atheism is indeed not a statement on what is knowable. But "perception" (in the sense of the 5 senses and any purported others) may well come into play in an ontology. One could be a complete realist and suggest that only those things which are immediately sensible can logically be in an ontology. One could be a complete cynic and suggest that only those things I personally have experienced through sense ought to be in my ontology. Or one could be extreme and suggest that nothing at all ought to be put into an ontology as the senses are doubtable.

Your culture's very own Al-Ghazali would have recognized such differences.

 

[S.A.M.]

I'm not a big fan of everything Ghazali wrote.

IMO, if you say No Comment, then offer an opinion, you've negated your position on No Comment.

 

[Tyler]

I think you're confusing agnosticism with "no comment", or atheism with what has been dubbed "strong atheism".

This is a rather natural confusion, especially around sciforums, given that most of the people who identify as one or the other are themselves not aware of the difference. (Please don't start the argument where "if enough people misunderstand a word, then the meaning has changed." I know... but in the world of academia we like to work by strong and well-defined definitions. If your beef is with the rabble who don't know what they're talking about, then I guess go ahead. But the technical meaning is all correct.)

Agnosticism is not "no comment". Which is why your analogy, again, is wrong. It is a very firm comment that "this is not an answerable question" and requires a number of other epistemological - and possibly other ontological - positions before it can be reached. It is not at all a refrain, it is instead a rather forceful position.

If, as I said, you simply mean to disagree with the people who think agnosticism means "no comment" and call themselves agnostics and atheists at the same time then, well, carry on. But I've never met someone who held those two positions.

 

[Tyler]

Ghazali was a brilliant writer, if not always correct. But one thing you cannot dispute is that he had a fine understanding of the divide between epistemology and ontology.

 

[S.A.M.]

Generally, no comment means, this is not an answerable question [for whatever reason]

Does it mean something else to you?

Ghazali was a brilliant writer, if not always correct. But one thing you cannot dispute is that he had a fine understanding of the divide between epistemology and ontology.

I haven't read Ghazali for a long time and never with serious study, so I am not really qualified to answer that.

 

[Tyler]

Sometimes it means "I don't want to say anything".

But, if what you're saying is that "this is not an answerable question" and "this is not in my ontology" are inconsistent, there is no reason this is true.

You seem to be unwilling to answer the questions I ask you, but I'd request you answer this one:

Okay, try it with the alien exchange.

Set Of All Things That Exist, aliens do not appear.
Set Of All Questions That Are Currently Answerable, whether or not there are aliens does not appear.

Could you please show that these two are inconsistent? If they are inconsistent - as you assert - can you tell me which ones you think most people would agree and disagree with?

 

[lightgigantic]

So if I ask someone on the street "Do you believe in God ?" and he says "No", he is acting out the requirement of atheism to declare himself an atheist ?

:crazy:

even more bizzarre would be if he said

"no, but you'll have to excuse me now since I am late for my sermon at the church"

 

[lightgigantic]

So to exist, we must be labeled?

for the purposes of discussion, yes

Lets just say I never once announced by belief or disbelief in any deity on this forum or anywhere else for that matter. Would that mean I ceased to exist?

It means you would cease to have any input to the discussion

He's right though. One does not have to tell everyone of their 'religious stance' to be recognised or heard.

How do you propose to discuss something that is neither recognized nor heard?

Or to cut to the car chase, just try and indicate something that is not subject to issues of social context (which brings in issues of category, label, etc)

 

[Bells]

for the purposes of discussion, yes

It means you would cease to have any input to the discussion

How do you propose to discuss something that is neither recognized nor heard?

Or to cut to the car chase, just try and indicate something that is not subject to issues of social context (which brings in issues of category, label, etc)

I think that is quite bizarre.

A person can have an opinion without telling a bunch of strangers on an internet forum what his/her religious beliefs happen to be.

 

[lightgigantic]

I think that is quite bizarre.

A person can have an opinion without telling a bunch of strangers on an internet forum what his/her religious beliefs happen to be.

If that opinion never finds its avenue in social discourse (of which internet discussions are just a tiny fragment) in what ways can it be determined to exist?
(feel free to give an example)

 

[Bells]

If that opinion never finds its avenue in social discourse (of which internet discussions are just a tiny fragment) in what ways can it be determined to exist?
(feel free to give an example)

Okay. Lets say I join this forum and had given no indication of my religious beliefs or leanings. Would I therefore be barred from participating in discussions that deal with religion or atheism, because I cannot be boxed into whatever category you seem to need to have? Does that mean I would cease to exist if I do not pigeonhole myself into a safe little category for your comfort?

 

[Enmos]

If that opinion never finds its avenue in social discourse (of which internet discussions are just a tiny fragment) in what ways can it be determined to exist?
(feel free to give an example)

Why does someone else need to determine if it exists ?

 

[lightgigantic]

Okay. Lets say I join this forum and had given no indication of my religious beliefs or leanings.

Well to begin with, it would be very difficult to understand how one could have (anti) religious beliefs or learnings that do not approach issues of category (Or to cut to the car chase, just try and indicate something that is not subject to issues of social context).

Would I therefore be barred from participating in discussions that deal with religion or atheism, because I cannot be boxed into whatever category you seem to need to have?

Its not so much about the personal needs I have for personal categories .... rather it is about the need for social discourse to have categories (or text and context).

I guess the only way around it is to have conversations that don't have nouns or pronouns

eg " running away ...... indiscriminate ...... colourful ..... suppose"
:crazy:

Does that mean I would cease to exist if I do not pigeonhole myself into a safe little category for your comfort?

It means you would be unable to participate in social discourse and there is no way for anyone to determine the existence of your opinions