If they have no concept, they should have no argument.
I know what I am talking about.
Do you know what you believe?
The Religious Atheist
- Thread starter S.A.M.
- Start date
If they have no concept, they should have no argument.
I know what I am talking about.
Do you know what you believe?
No, but if you have no cognitive content associated with a concept, what are you arguing with?
And indeed, they don't. The issue - again - is that you keep presenting arguments about them. Insisting they aren't atheists, for example, or can't even exist at all.
Threads on Atheist/Theist views always seem to deteriorate into the posting of a lot of nonsense.
Yes, there are philosophical systems which can be called religious, but which do not involve belief in a deity. It is still nit-picking to harp on this point. Most of the people who post here consider the concept religion to include the belief in a deity. One mention of some exception (EG: Daoism) to this is sufficient to score some points, but is still nit-picking. To have dozens of posts arguing on this particular minor issue is a silly waste of time.
From the point of view of formal logic, nothing can be proven to be true. The most you can hope for is a proof that some statement is consistent with a set of unproven axioms. Belief in such axioms can be referred to as faith based.
On the basis of the above, one could claim that the Atheist view is faith based, since it cannot be proven.
However it is incredibly naive (intellectually silly) to claim that the faith-based Atheist view is neither better nor worse than the faith based Theist view.
Consider the following belief system.
One could say that both groups have faith based beliefs. The seedist cannot prove the existence of the ancients, while the Aseedist cannot disprove their existence.
Can one say that one belief system is neither better or nor worse than the other because neither can provide a proof of their view?
The Seedist view makes unusual (one might say extraordinary) claims. The Aseedist view is not making any unusual claims. In point of fact, the Aseedist view would not exist if it were not for the Seedists.
Those who make unusual or extraordinary claims (EG: Seedists) should be required to provide some very cogent supporting arguments. Those who deny unusual or extraordinary claims (EG: Aseedists) need not support their view & clearly have a more cogent belief system.
BTW: I seldom argue with theists if they neither try to refute science nor convert me to their view. I am usually willing to say (to myself): “If their belief system provides emotional comfort & encourages good behavior, I have no reason to put them down.” The Creationists & ID'ers do not bother me until they try to get their views into the science class room.
Yes, there are philosophical systems which can be called religious, but which do not involve belief in a deity. It is still nit-picking to harp on this point. Most of the people who post here consider the concept religion to include the belief in a deity. One mention of some exception (EG: Daoism) to this is sufficient to score some points, but is still nit-picking. To have dozens of posts arguing on this particular minor issue is a silly waste of time.
From the point of view of formal logic, nothing can be proven to be true. The most you can hope for is a proof that some statement is consistent with a set of unproven axioms. Belief in such axioms can be referred to as faith based.
On the basis of the above, one could claim that the Atheist view is faith based, since it cannot be proven.
However it is incredibly naive (intellectually silly) to claim that the faith-based Atheist view is neither better nor worse than the faith based Theist view.
Consider the following belief system.
- Many billions of years ago, there was an advanced technological culture with scientific knowledge far beyond ours.
- This ancient civilization decided to seed various planets in the universe with primitive living organisms, expecting them to evolve into more complex living organisms.
- The Earth is one example of the results of the activities of that ancient civilization.
One could say that both groups have faith based beliefs. The seedist cannot prove the existence of the ancients, while the Aseedist cannot disprove their existence.
Can one say that one belief system is neither better or nor worse than the other because neither can provide a proof of their view?
The Seedist view makes unusual (one might say extraordinary) claims. The Aseedist view is not making any unusual claims. In point of fact, the Aseedist view would not exist if it were not for the Seedists.
Those who make unusual or extraordinary claims (EG: Seedists) should be required to provide some very cogent supporting arguments. Those who deny unusual or extraordinary claims (EG: Aseedists) need not support their view & clearly have a more cogent belief system.
BTW: I seldom argue with theists if they neither try to refute science nor convert me to their view. I am usually willing to say (to myself): “If their belief system provides emotional comfort & encourages good behavior, I have no reason to put them down.” The Creationists & ID'ers do not bother me until they try to get their views into the science class room.
But if they have no cognitive content on the concept, they should have no argument.
One does not need to have an "argument," in order to exist.
By all means, though, respond that "they shouldn't have an argument" a few more times, if you want to appear even more obtuse.
but you certainly need one for a rebuttal
let's get to the point
Do you have an argument?
What I have is a point, and a certain bewilderment at the lengths some people will go to in order to miss it.
Last edited:
On the contrary, you seem to be going to extraordinary lengths to miss the point that not a single atheist has come to sciforums bereft of religious concepts (yourself included).
How would you know? By definition, you wouldn't have had a chance to find out.
And anyway, the issue is not the composition of the minds of SciForums posters, but that of everyone.
And when did I ever claim to personally be "bereft of religious concepts?"
You think a person can somehow come to the position of being familiar with communication devices and keyboarding skills yet somehow bypass any comprehension of the topic of god?
well feel free to indicate anyone with moderate capabilities of communication who doesn't have some religious concept (or rebuttal/opinion, as the case may be)
just pointing out how fantastic this category of a "pure atheist" is.
You seem to have a great deal of trouble following the obvious in this matter, but just in case; one more time: Only some atheistic people hold such a belief. Most don't. I don't, for example. I don't bother.SAM said:
Begging the question, in increasingly ornate and decreasingly sensible ways.SAM said:
My what? Good Lord.SAM said:
If there is a more severe indictment of theistic belief than its ability to produce gibberish like that from otherwise reasonable people, educated and intellectual and involved in a debate, I'm not sure what it would be. That shit is crippling.
You seem to have a great deal of trouble following the obvious in this matter, but just in case; one more time: Only some atheists hold such a belief. Most don't. I don't, for example.SAM said:
What?! Good Lord.SAM said:
If there were a more severe indictment of theistic belief than its ability to produce gibberish like that from otherwise reasonable people, educated and intellectual and involved in a debate, I'm not sure what it would be. That shit is crippling.
Last edited:
Unlikely, but possible.
You mean, other than small children? Where did this "moderate capabilities of communication" qualifier come from? Do those with submoderate communicative capabilities lie outside the realm of belief or cognitive content or whatever?
Are you trying to define "atheists" or "atheists I argue with here?"
Indeed, small children are a fairly fantastic phenomenon.
But it's true that this is something of a nitpick point. The more relevant one is the conflation of absence of belief with belief in absence.
until you can offer an example, we could also add "non-evident" also
a moderate capability for communication is the ability for one person to express a concept and another person to understand it ..... roughly around the stage where one can begin to use tools of syntax
Its more like "atheists as they exist anywhere in communication" as opposed to "atheists as they might exist within a fantastic stretch of probability".
especially if you think they form the mainstay of atheist ideology and expression
Then perhaps now would be a good time to indicate those persons who have come to the point of communicating their absence of belief in god completely bereft of any cognitive content.
And (if you want to present the case that you are not being purely rhetorical) it would also be good to explain how the contribution of these persons has shaped the face of atheism as it is commonly encountered.
Non-evident here, perhaps, but there seems to be no shortage of small children in the world.
Yeah, that's great. Again: do people who lack the "tools of syntax" also lack "cognitive content?"
What I asked was for the relevance of this requirement, not its definition.
And, again, where did this requirement of communication come from? Do people who can't - or simply don't - communicate not exhibit cognitive content?
Small children exist with very high probability, no stretching required.
I don't, and haven't said that they do. They do, however, exist in considerable numbers, and so cannot be simply defined out of the category "atheist."
Again, when did I say anything about communication, and how is it relevant to the category "atheist?"
If you want to talk about "communicative atheists," or some other subgroup, that's fine by me. Just stop conflating them with all atheists, or insisting that I do so.
Well, if you encounter small children commonly, the answer should be obvious.
More to the point, it's what certain theists miss about the face of atheism, by insisting that this class of people does not exist.
And (if you want to present the case that you are not being an asshat) it would also be good to stop acting like an asshat.
Yeah, I've seen the amount of time and effort you spend on arguing on how not to bother.
Or is that the religious atheist around you?
No, you haven't.SAM said:
That's not what I'm doing here, and here is all you've seen of me.
More to the point, it's completely obvious that that's not what I'm doing here - I haven't spent five seconds arguing for any "belief" in the absence of deity, or how to acquire such a belief, etc.
Once again, a particular and specific crippling of ordinary reason in otherwise reasonable people - the creation of blind spots of surprising simplicity and obviousness, defended with passion and argued with increasing absurdity - is one of the most striking correlations visible with fundie theistic religion.
quadraphonics
“
complete with comprehension of communication devices and keyboarding skills too, eh?
its just when you talk of them somehow growing up to become familiar with complex issues of communication (like the internet for example) yet somehow bypassing the subject of god that it becomes amazing
“
.
complete with comprehension of communication devices and keyboarding skills too, eh?
Venturing into one's opinion on something metaphysical would require syntax.
Whats the relevance in discussing the social implications of a class of people (like drooling 6 month year old "atheist" babies) that are not on the platform of making critical individual contributions yet?
Its more like that trying to determine the metaphysical perspective of someone who is not on the platform of communication is completely futile.
sure
its just when you talk of them somehow growing up to become familiar with complex issues of communication (like the internet for example) yet somehow bypassing the subject of god that it becomes amazing
If they haven't even come to the platform of communication, its kind of amazing how you can determine their metaphysical perspective.
You can try and talk of atheism bereft of a social medium but it just sounds silly from the beginning.
if an atheist didn't communicate that they were, how would you know that they were
Again, why am I supposed to care about this requirement of being able to type? That a baby isn't going to participate here is irrelevant: either of us can walk around our respective neighborhoods and encounter as many examples of blank-slate atheists as we like. And so it's important to include them, when defining these categories.
And yet that poses no obstacle that I can see to not holding an opinion in the first place.
What I'm discussing is the intellectual implications of defining a class of people out of existence.
That some class of people is irrelevant to some specific topic, here, is not a good reason to pretend that they can't even exist in the first place.
Again, I have no problem with you defining some subclass of "cummicative atheists on the critical individual contributory platform," and addressing them, if that's what you're interested in.
It's S.A.M.'s extension of "atheists who argue with S.A.M. on SciForums" into the entire group "atheism," that is problematic.
All the more reason to include the category "people without any presumed metaphysical perspective," then.
That someone isn't an interesting subject for you to interrogate, doesn't mean they don't exist.
You're the one who keeps talking about that. Since the point I'm making is that "people who participate here" is not an exhaustive, or representative, sample of "people," the fact that certain classes are highly unlikely to participate here does not strike me as a particularly cutting retort.
I don't imagine there are any adults that remain blank-slate atheists, in this day and age (although there could be some isolated people lost on remote islands or jungles or whatever), but that isn't the point. There are more than enough babies who fit the bill, to make this an important category.
I don't so much determine it, as refuse to make any unsupported assumptions about its content. Or equate a lack of affirmation with active denial, for that matter.
It helps that I was fortunate enough not to be indoctrinated in religion at very early ages, and so can actually remember encountering the concepts in question when they were still alien to me. So there's also the weight of personal experience here.
if an atheist didn't communicate that they were, how would you know that they were
Because atheist is a negative term to begin with. It indicates a lack of a positive theistic affirmation. And since everyone is, at some point, so young as to lack the necessary machinery to encounter, comprehend and affirm any such theistic concept, it follows that they remain (weak) atheists. At least under any supportable viewpoint: it's the religious folks that are stuck dreaming up fanciful ways to pretend that embryos believe in the teachings of bearded men who died thousands of years ago.
If this insistence seems belabored or spurious to you, then you are nearing comprehension of my point, which is that - in terms of basic regard for the theistic beliefs in question - most communicative atheists have more in common with blank-slate atheists than actual strong, ideological atheists of the sort that S.A.M. works so desperately to equate with the rest of us. I.e., the difference between the blank-slate baby and your vanilla ("communicative") weak atheist is simply that the weak atheist has heard of the concepts in question. They just don't strike the weak atheist as worthwhile questions, and so ends up spending essentially the same cognitive effort on them as the blank slate: none at all. Everyone starts out as a blank-slate atheist, and understanding that, and how you get from there to here, is crucial to understanding what and how atheists actually think.
The strong opinions are about the social effects of theistic institutions, and the behavior of certain irrascible theists. It's here that there is a big difference between the blank-slate and weak atheist, and strong similarity between the weak and strong atheists. Which is understandable: people don't appreciate being repressed, regardless of how actively they may disagree with the cosmis convictions of their repressors. Talking about repression without a social medium is silly, but talking about an absence of specific beliefs about the cosmos? Seems pretty straightforward to me.
And so we see where the problem arises: argumentative theists are necessarily concerned with the latter set of strong opinions - which is actually a reaction to certain theistic societies, divorced from actual metaphysical content - and so the most obtuse ones end up trying to impute that back into the basic definition of atheism, resulting in the intellectual trainwrecks seen so frequently here.
Last edited: