The Religious Atheist

[lightgigantic]

quadraphonics

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
complete with comprehension of communication devices and keyboarding skills too, eh?
”
Again, why am I supposed to care about this requirement of being able to type?

well the comment was originally made in the context of internet communication

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.

even outside of the specifics of internet communication, its not clear how you discern the metaphysical stance of others while bypassing issues of communication.
Seems to be more of a case of you projecting your values on others.

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Venturing into one's opinion on something metaphysical would require syntax.
”
And yet that poses no obstacle that I can see to not holding an opinion in the first place.

The problem is that you don't actually see no opinion.
All you see is silence (due to an inability to engage in communication).
You invent their opinion.

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
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?
”
What I'm discussing is the intellectual implications of defining a class of people out of existence.

actually we are discussing the inclusion of a class of people in a category that has the prerequisite of communication/literacy skills.

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.

Its not that they don't exist.
Its that they don't exist in a category that has the prerequisite for communication.

If I can't understand/you can't communicate that you don't believe in god, how on earth would someone discern that you are an atheist? Telepathy?

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

.
On the contrary, an atheist without skills in communication is simply a sub category at best or an abstract concept at worst.

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.

Posing a class of atheist that doesn't even have the possibility of venturing into the realm of communication is one thing. Drawing them up as the king pin for all atheist metaphysical claims is something else ....

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Its more like that trying to determine the metaphysical perspective of someone who is not on the platform of communication is completely futile.
”
All the more reason to include the category "people without any presumed metaphysical perspective," then.

how that lands one in the default position of "atheist" is the problem

That someone isn't an interesting subject for you to interrogate, doesn't mean they don't exist.

Its not clear how you pose to interrogate a person that doesn't meet the necessary requirements to engage in communication

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
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
”
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.

As mentioned, the statement was originally made in the context of internet communication. Even if you want to extend that to the broader sphere of atheism, there is still a requirement for communication.

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.

actually the appearance of issues of religion in all cultures in all times, even those separated from vast geographical/chronological gulfs, tends to draw anthropologists (including atheist ones) that religious notions are somehow embedded into our consciousness (of course the atheist anthropologists have all sorts of wonderful tales to explain this as a non-consequential projection of a higher truth ....) .... but anyway .... it still holds that its not clear why the inability to engage in communication lands one in the default position of atheism.

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
If they haven't even come to the platform of communication, its kind of amazing how you can determine their metaphysical perspective.
”
I don't so much determine it, as refuse to make any unsupported assumptions about its content.

too late

when you call them "atheist" you have already jumped the gun

Or equate a lack of affirmation with active denial, for that matter.

hehe

as if "denial" has scope for remaining "inactive"

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.

And that tends to be how it goes.
People form a stance after being presented with a claim .
Claiming that persons belong to a stance before the claim is presented is absurd.

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
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.

Actually babies are born without the capability to engage in quite a range of concepts.
And (as sci attests) atheism is very much a concept.

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.

No less fanciful than the idea that atheism can be maintained without an ideology

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.

The more you try to talk about atheism without an ideology, the more you destroy your cause.
:shrug:

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.

Seems you are confusing value content with cognitive content.

You may think that theism has no value.
But if you think you share the same cognitive content as a newborn on the subject you are obviously mistaken ...

Everyone starts out as a blank-slate atheist,

You could say that everyone starts as a blank slate (although a range of sciences, from genetics to anthropology tends to indicate otherwise).

Tagging a value (like "atheism") afterwards tends to corrupt the term however.

and understanding that, and how you get from there to here, is crucial to understanding what and how atheists actually think.

You run into problems when you try to pass off "thinking" as being bereft of any value

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.

A cosmos without a creator is not specific?
Or is it simply a truth so sublime that it is beyond specifics?

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.

While the social ramifications of theism is certainly a popular pastime amongst the whole atheist vs theist debate, theism certainly has a larger umbrella than politics.

Basically your argument boils down to "babies aren't born political".

Trying to dress the terms "atheist" and "apolitical" as non-different doesn't hold.

 

[quadraphonics]

well the comment was originally made in the context of internet communication

On an internet message board? Imagine that. I suppose we can assume plants out of existence as well, since they can never appear in this context.

The issue is what the comment was about, not what medium it appeared it.

even outside of the specifics of internet communication, its not clear how you discern the metaphysical stance of others while bypassing issues of communication.

It's simple: those who are not capable of encountering or forming metaphysical stances necessarily don't have any. That means, in particular, that they don't have an affirmative belief in a deity. And that is the definition of a (weak) atheist.

The problem is that you don't actually see no opinion.
All you see is silence (due to an inability to engage in communication).

And since the ability to engage in communication is - according to you - a prerequisite to holding any of the opinions in question, or not, I can safely assume that none of said opinions are held.

You invent their opinion.

What I'm ascribed to them is a lack of opinion.

actually we are discussing the inclusion of a class of people in a category that has the prerequisite of communication/literacy skills.

No, I've been very clear in every single one of my replies to you that said prerequisite was an unjustified imposition by you, which I continue to reject.

Its not that they don't exist.
Its that they don't exist in a category that has the prerequisite for communication.

Great. How many times will I have to disclaim interest in said prerequisite before you stop trying to bludgeon me with ti?

If I can't understand/you can't communicate that you don't believe in god, how on earth would someone discern that you are an atheist? Telepathy?

If you can't understand the premises in question, you can't have an opinion on them, and so you can't be anything other than an atheist. Not being an atheist requires positive affirmation of some theistic belief. If you are incapable of that, for whatever reason, the only possibility that remains is atheism. Literally: "without deity."

On the contrary, an atheist without skills in communication is simply a sub category at best or an abstract concept at worst.

That is not "contrary" to anything I've said.

Posing a class of atheist that doesn't even have the possibility of venturing into the realm of communication is one thing.

On the contrary, almost every single one of the millions of blank-slate atheists around the world is guaranteed to venture into the realm of communication, and in fairly short order. Kids grow up, learn to communicate, encounter these ideas, and form convictions. Only the few that die at an early age or have extreme developmental problems can remain blank-slate atheists for life.

how that lands one in the default position of "atheist" is the problem

It's a default position exactly because any other position has the positive requirement of an affirmative belief. No affirmative belief = no theism = (weak) atheist.

Is that really so complicated?

Its not clear how you pose to interrogate a person that doesn't meet the necessary requirements to engage in communication

It's not clear where you get the idea that I propose to do that.

Even if you want to extend that to the broader sphere of atheism, there is still a requirement for communication.

Says you. I remain unconvinced.

And, anyway, in every single blank-slate atheist, there is a short period between when he developes communicative capacities, and when he encounters these ideas and forms (or not) convictions about them.

So almost every single child in human history has enjoyed at least a momentary sojourn as a blank-slate atheist with communicative capacities. Did I not just describe to your my own personal recollection of exactly such a period in my own life?

as if "denial" has scope for remaining "inactive"

Denial is distinct from simple lack of affirmation. Do you have a response to that, or are you too busy playing the picky editor?

And that tends to be how it goes.
People form a stance after being presented with a claim .
Claiming that persons belong to a stance before the claim is presented is absurd.

What I'm claiming is that people have no stance before a claim is presented. That's how we can know that people without the capacity to have claims presented to them, do not have stances on them, and so must be atheists.

Why is this so hard to understand? (Weak) Atheism is not some mirror-image of religion, with a corresponding set of positive claims. It's the absense of such a thing. Thus, the inability to embrace positive claims, necessarily makes you an atheist.

Actually babies are born without the capability to engage in quite a range of concepts.
And (as sci attests) atheism is very much a concept.

No, atheism is a catch-all term that includes certain conceptual claims (strong atheism) as well as the absence of such claims, or even the absence of such concepts at all.

And I wouldn't cite SciForums as proof of much of anything.

No less fanciful than the idea that atheism can be maintained without an ideology

"Maintained?"

The more you try to talk about atheism without an ideology, the more you destroy your cause.

Sorry, what is my cause again?

You may think that theism has no value.
But if you think you share the same cognitive content as a newborn on the subject you are obviously mistaken ...

Cognitive "activity" would have been a better choice of words.

But let's just rephrase entirely: I don't spend much more time thinking about the question, than the newborn does, and this is typical of weak atheists. If this stuff struck us as important, we'd go all the way and become strong, ideological atheists. But the vast majority do not do this.

You could say that everyone starts as a blank slate (although a range of sciences, from genetics to anthropology tends to indicate otherwise).

But I didn't.

And, by the way, you skipped a step in your rhetoric. The phrasing should begin "You could as well say that..." As written, it doesn't even attempt to apply to me.

Tagging a value (like "atheism") afterwards tends to corrupt the term however.

Atheism is not a "value."

You run into problems when you try to pass off "thinking" as being bereft of any value

Riiiiiiight....

By the way, you know that warm, squishy thing that your head keeps running into? It's your large intestine.

A cosmos without a creator is not specific?

The issue there is not specificity, but conflation of absence of belief with belief in absence.

A common defect, with certain posters here.

 

[lightgigantic]

Quadraphonic

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
well the comment was originally made in the context of internet communication
”
On an internet message board? Imagine that. I suppose we can assume plants out of existence as well, since they can never appear in this context.

The issue is what the comment was about, not what medium it appeared it.

errr .... the comment was about the medium that it appeared in ... but anyhow .... we can extend it to a broader principle if you wish ...

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
even outside of the specifics of internet communication, its not clear how you discern the metaphysical stance of others while bypassing issues of communication.
”
It's simple: those who are not capable of encountering or forming metaphysical stances necessarily don't have any.

That means, in particular, that they don't have an affirmative belief in a deity. And that is the definition of a (weak) atheist.

the problem is that atheism is a metaphysical stance

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
The problem is that you don't actually see no opinion.
All you see is silence (due to an inability to engage in communication).
”
And since the ability to engage in communication is - according to you - a prerequisite to holding any of the opinions in question, or not, I can safely assume that none of said opinions are held.

Its not "no communication = no opinion".

Its "no communication = no verifiable opinion".

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
You invent their opinion.
”
What I'm ascribed to them is a lack of opinion.

which is an invention, since all you are really working with is an absence of communication (as opposed as an absence of belief in a concept or whatever)

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
actually we are discussing the inclusion of a class of people in a category that has the prerequisite of communication/literacy skills.
”
No, I've been very clear in every single one of my replies to you that said prerequisite was an unjustified imposition by you, which I continue to reject.

Once again, discussing the number of adherents to an ideology while bypassing imperatives of communication poses unique problems

“

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
If I can't understand/you can't communicate that you don't believe in god, how on earth would someone discern that you are an atheist? Telepathy?
”
If you can't understand the premises in question, you can't have an opinion on them, and so you can't be anything other than an atheist.

The problem is that an atheist has a very specific opinion.

Not being an atheist requires positive affirmation of some theistic belief.

It also requires a very specific opinion on how the universe/reality operates, namely in the absence of a controlling entity.

If you are incapable of that, for whatever reason, the only possibility that remains is atheism. Literally: "without deity."

The problem is that atheism is a very specific response to a very specific claim. Throwing others on the bandwagon, to whom there is no possibility of even beginning to introduce the claim, what to speak of a rebuttal of it, is ludicrous.

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
On the contrary, an atheist without skills in communication is simply a sub category at best or an abstract concept at worst.
”
That is not "contrary" to anything I've said.

You have indicated that an atheist with cognitive content is a sub category though ....

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Posing a class of atheist that doesn't even have the possibility of venturing into the realm of communication is one thing.
”
On the contrary, almost every single one of the millions of blank-slate atheists around the world is guaranteed to venture into the realm of communication, and in fairly short order.

yes
at which point they begin to form a stance in regards to a claim

Kids grow up, learn to communicate, encounter these ideas, and form convictions. Only the few that die at an early age or have extreme developmental problems can remain blank-slate atheists for life.

All you are doing with the use of the term "blank slate atheist" is suggesting that theism is a socially generated term ... aka filling the coffers of atheist ideology. Needless to say, it is a metaphysical stance.

If the inability to participate in communication is sufficient to swell the numbers of a cause, I guess even trade unions can call upon the nations infant population to lend popularity to their cause.


“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
how that lands one in the default position of "atheist" is the problem
”
It's a default position exactly because any other position has the positive requirement of an affirmative belief. No affirmative belief = no theism = (weak) atheist.

If you switch the terms of your tentative argument around, it can be played right back at you.

After all, babies aren't born with the affirmative belief that there is no deity governing universal affairs.

(IOW even atheism has issues of cognitive content)

Is that really so complicated?

No cognitive content and no ideology does not equal atheism.

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Its not clear how you pose to interrogate a person that doesn't meet the necessary requirements to engage in communication
”
It's not clear where you get the idea that I propose to do that.

You admit that atheism is a very specific perspective on a deity.
Without the tools of communication, you cannot verify perspective.

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Even if you want to extend that to the broader sphere of atheism, there is still a requirement for communication.
”
Says you. I remain unconvinced.

And, anyway, in every single blank-slate atheist, there is a short period between when he developes communicative capacities, and when he encounters these ideas and forms (or not) convictions about them.

fancy that, eh?
You have a concept, you explain what it is, and you verify their opinion.

So almost every single child in human history has enjoyed at least a momentary sojourn as a blank-slate atheist with communicative capacities.
Did I not just describe to your my own personal recollection of exactly such a period in my own life?

the problem is that you didn't come equipped with the ability to communicate your atheism, even after the point of being communicative

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
as if "denial" has scope for remaining "inactive"
”
Denial is distinct from simple lack of affirmation. Do you have a response to that, or are you too busy playing the picky editor?

The only scope for denial being inactive, is if a person is denying nothing.
Clearly this is not the case with atheism, since it affirms very clear guidelines about the state of the universe.

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
And that tends to be how it goes.
People form a stance after being presented with a claim .
Claiming that persons belong to a stance before the claim is presented is absurd.
”
What I'm claiming is that people have no stance before a claim is presented.

sure

you only run into problems when you claim this is synonymous with atheism

That's how we can know that people without the capacity to have claims presented to them, do not have stances on them, and so must be atheists.

Everything ideological, including atheism, has a stance.

Why is this so hard to understand? (Weak) Atheism is not some mirror-image of religion, with a corresponding set of positive claims. It's the absense of such a thing. Thus, the inability to embrace positive claims, necessarily makes you an atheist.

(weak) atheism is simply an abstraction, since it exists outside of the standard channels that opinion is verified.

Its commonly brought in to bolster the opinions of (strong) atheists to suggest they are representing the default position of humanity

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Actually babies are born without the capability to engage in quite a range of concepts.
And (as sci attests) atheism is very much a concept.
”
No, atheism is a catch-all term that includes certain conceptual claims (strong atheism) as well as the absence of such claims, or even the absence of such concepts at all.

So chairs are also atheist, since they have an absence of concepts about god?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
No less fanciful than the idea that atheism can be maintained without an ideology
”
"Maintained?"

you know

what happens when "weak" atheists get rudely interrupted

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
The more you try to talk about atheism without an ideology, the more you destroy your cause.
”
Sorry, what is my cause again?

atheism without ideology of course

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
You may think that theism has no value.
But if you think you share the same cognitive content as a newborn on the subject you are obviously mistaken ...
”
Cognitive "activity" would have been a better choice of words.

But let's just rephrase entirely: I don't spend much more time thinking about the question, than the newborn does, and this is typical of weak atheists.

sure
its all the degree that we value something

If this stuff struck us as important, we'd go all the way and become strong, ideological atheists. But the vast majority do not do this.

there's a big difference between cognitive content that backs a value (commonly called politics) and the absence of a value.

Once again, you are confusing apolitical with atheism.

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
You could say that everyone starts as a blank slate (although a range of sciences, from genetics to anthropology tends to indicate otherwise).
”
But I didn't.

I'm intrigued.

What was on the agenda before the appearance of atheism on a "blank slate atheist"?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Tagging a value (like "atheism") afterwards tends to corrupt the term however.
”
Atheism is not a "value."

meh

if that's the case, it wouldn't have social ramifications

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
You run into problems when you try to pass off "thinking" as being bereft of any value
”
Riiiiiiight....

By the way, you know that warm, squishy thing that your head keeps running into? It's your large intestine.

hehe

well feel free to offer an example of thinking that is bereft of value.

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
A cosmos without a creator is not specific?
”
The issue there is not specificity, but conflation of absence of belief with belief in absence.

A common defect, with certain posters here.

hehe

so you think a cosmos without a creator/supporter doesn't present a value system?

How does it feel to be the hand that feeds you?

 

[iceaura]

so you think a cosmos without a creator/supporter doesn't present a value system?

The cosmos would not be the "presenter" of the value system, were it deity free.

The nature and context of the being involved, the entity in possession of the values and systematization potential together with its universe of relevant circumstances, would be the field of meaning.

the problem is that atheism is a metaphysical stance

There are several, varied, even mutually contradictory, atheistic stances.

As well as a wide variety of theistic stances, of course.

The problem is that an atheist has a very specific opinion

But not the same one, necessarily, as another atheist. The Buddhist, Navajo, Marxist, Paraja, and Scottish Enlightenment atheists vary considerably in their "specific opinions". Your own manner of disbelief in Baal would not be the same as that of an ex-Baalist atheist, eh?

 

[lightgigantic]

The cosmos would not be the "presenter" of the value system, were it deity free.

the person taking part in a cosmos free of a deity certainly would present something however.

The nature and context of the being involved, the entity in possession of the values and systematization potential together with its universe of relevant circumstances, would be the field of meaning.

all of which come together quite fluidly in the being of practitioner

There are several, varied, even mutually contradictory, atheistic stances.

sure

but they all have a common thread and can hence be determined as atheistic stances and all of them are metaphysical.

As well as a wide variety of theistic stances, of course.
But not the same one, necessarily, as another atheist. The Buddhist, Navajo, Marxist, Paraja, and Scottish Enlightenment atheists vary considerably in their "specific opinions".

feel free to indicate which ones are reconcilable with the notion of a supreme entity that ultimately controls/maintains/creates everything

(as a side point, buddhist, navajo and paraja can easily find their place within henological discourse - or discourse that deals with different gradients of theism)

Your own manner of disbelief in Baal would not be the same as that of an ex-Baalist atheist, eh?

on contrary, its reconcilable to henological discourse (a tool not in the bag of tricks of an atheist)

 

[quadraphonics]

the problem is that atheism is a metaphysical stance

Or rather, your problem is your insistence on this idea.

Its not "no communication = no opinion".

Its "no communication = no verifiable opinion".


which is an invention, since all you are really working with is an absence of communication (as opposed as an absence of belief in a concept or whatever)

If you like. I did use the word "ascribe," didn't I?

Once again, discussing the number of adherents to an ideology while bypassing imperatives of communication poses unique problems

For you, apparently. I'm still not seeing them.

The problem is that an atheist has a very specific opinion.

Only some of them. Most are characterized by a lack of a specific opinion.

It also requires a very specific opinion on how the universe/reality operates, namely in the absence of a controlling entity.

No, an absence of such an opinion is also sufficient.

The problem is that atheism is a very specific response to a very specific claim.

No, it's the lack of a very specific (affirmative) response to a very specific claim. Whether that takes the form of some other, contradictory opinion, or simply a shrug, is secondary.

Throwing others on the bandwagon, to whom there is no possibility of even beginning to introduce the claim, what to speak of a rebuttal of it, is ludicrous.

At this point, I'm more worried about you insisting that I have a specific belief in the absence of a deity, than how the children are to be accounted.

at which point they begin to form a stance in regards to a claim

So you agree that, prior to such a time, they did not have any stance? And so could not affirm belief in a deity? And so could not possibly be considered theists?

Now if only we had a word that referred to the lack of theism....

... aka filling the coffers of atheist ideology. Needless to say, it is a metaphysical stance.

It is the lack of certain metaphysical stances. What others - if any - are held in their places, is secondary.

If you switch the terms of your tentative argument around, it can be played right back at you.

After all, babies aren't born with the affirmative belief that there is no deity governing universal affairs.

That does not constitute a counter-argument to what I have been saying. Atheism requires only the lack of affirmative belief in a deity, not the affirmative belief that there is no deity.

There are no affirmative beliefs required for atheism. I'm an atheist, and - like most atheists - don't hold any affirmative belief that there is no deity.

No cognitive content and no ideology does not equal atheism.

Sure it does, by default.

You admit that atheism is a very specific perspective on a deity.

No, I am adamant that atheism is the lack of certain very specific perspectives on a deity.

Clearly this is not the case with atheism, since it affirms very clear guidelines about the state of the universe.

Wrong again.

You can keep insisting that all atheists are strong atheists all you want, and it's not going to impress me. What you demand atheists do or don't believe has no bearing on anything.

(weak) atheism is simply an abstraction, since it exists outside of the standard channels that opinion is verified.

You are confusing weak atheism with a special case: blank-slate atheism.

Most weak atheists - such as myself - exist inside the standard channels without any problems.

And we constitute the majority of atheists - even excluding the children.

Its commonly brought in to bolster the opinions of (strong) atheists to suggest they are representing the default position of humanity

Now you're confusing strong and weak atheists. It's the weak atheists that (correctly) suggest they represent the default position of humanity. I've yet to hear anyone argue that children are born with an affirmative belief that no deity exists.

So chairs are also atheist, since they have an absence of concepts about god?

Sure, if you like. That doesn't make the metaphysical content of a chair interesting.

well feel free to offer an example of thinking that is bereft of value.

There's no need: your incontinence is providing more examples than I can keep up with.

How does it feel to be the hand that feeds you?

Empowering.

 

[lightgigantic]

quadraphonics

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
the problem is that atheism is a metaphysical stance
”
Or rather, your problem is your insistence on this idea.

hehe

then feel free to explain the atheistic perspective without touching on anything metaphysical

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Its not "no communication = no opinion".

Its "no communication = no verifiable opinion".


which is an invention, since all you are really working with is an absence of communication (as opposed as an absence of belief in a concept or whatever)
”
If you like. I did use the word "ascribe," didn't I?

I don't see how that offers anything to the case of "no communication = no opinion"

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Once again, discussing the number of adherents to an ideology while bypassing imperatives of communication poses unique problems
”
For you, apparently. I'm still not seeing them.

Then perhaps you haven't thought about the matter thoroughly enough.

Perhaps if you were god-like you could determine the ideological stance of others while being bereft of the necessary tools of communication.

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
The problem is that an atheist has a very specific opinion.
”
Only some of them. Most are characterized by a lack of a specific opinion.

nonsense.

Even you entertain a very specific world view requirement for a (weak) atheist.

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
It also requires a very specific opinion on how the universe/reality operates, namely in the absence of a controlling entity.
”
No, an absence of such an opinion is also sufficient.

sure

which boils down to the (specific) "empowering" atheist notion of being the hand that feeds one's self

This is distinct from even theism in its most rudimentary forms (like say animism) which can recognize other players.

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
The problem is that atheism is a very specific response to a very specific claim.
”
No, it's the lack of a very specific (affirmative) response to a very specific claim. Whether that takes the form of some other, contradictory opinion, or simply a shrug, is secondary.

So when contemplating how they fit in the universe, you don't get a specific response from the atheist world view?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Throwing others on the bandwagon, to whom there is no possibility of even beginning to introduce the claim, what to speak of a rebuttal of it, is ludicrous.
”
At this point, I'm more worried about you insisting that I have a specific belief in the absence of a deity, than how the children are to be accounted.

I'm not sure why that worries you.

You certainly don't feel shy about getting specific about atheism.

And further more, it becomes even more intriguing when you bolster the number of adherents by citing demographics that aren't even capable of communication.

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
at which point they begin to form a stance in regards to a claim
”
So you agree that, prior to such a time, they did not have any stance?

sure
including the atheist stance

And so could not affirm belief in a deity? And so could not possibly be considered theists?

Now if only we had a word that referred to the lack of theism....

If you're thinking of atheism, you will have to try again, since it incorporates a host of principles that makes theism untenable.

(IOW there's a big difference between something that is untenable and something that is absent)

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
... aka filling the coffers of atheist ideology. Needless to say, it is a metaphysical stance.
”
It is the lack of certain metaphysical stances.

Feel free to explain how "being the hand that feeds one's self" doesn't approach any metaphysical issues.

What others - if any - are held in their places, is secondary.

On the contrary, the notion of being the hand that feeds one's self is a primary designation of atheist ideology.

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
If you switch the terms of your tentative argument around, it can be played right back at you.

After all, babies aren't born with the affirmative belief that there is no deity governing universal affairs.
”
That does not constitute a counter-argument to what I have been saying. Atheism requires only the lack of affirmative belief in a deity, not the affirmative belief that there is no deity.

hehe

feel free to explain how a lack of affirmative belief in a deity develops a value system that is distinct from an affirmative disbelief in a deity.

There are no affirmative beliefs required for atheism.

The moment you raise the issue of how an atheist believes they exist in relation to their environment is the moment you have beliefs.

I'm an atheist, and - like most atheists - don't hold any affirmative belief that there is no deity.

your value system suggests otherwise

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
No cognitive content and no ideology does not equal atheism.
”
Sure it does, by default.

duh

if it did it wouldn't be capable of critique or exhibit a default consensus to issues such as "being the hand that feeds one's self" etc etc

Once again, feel free to offer an example of thinking that doesn't touch on issues of value

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Clearly this is not the case with atheism, since it affirms very clear guidelines about the state of the universe.
”
Wrong again.

You can keep insisting that all atheists are strong atheists all you want, and it's not going to impress me. What you demand atheists do or don't believe has no bearing on anything.

If you take away the notion of a deity governing universal affairs, you are, by default, left with the proposition of the individual out to make the most the universe (aka the hand that feeds one's self).

IOW you have a perspective of the greater environment/universe and how that relates to one's sef.

You can pretend to dress this up as something valueless/bereft of ideology, but it is clearly a metaphysical stance. IOW an individual takes a slice of their experience and extrapolates that to form a world view.

In short, the notion of an individual who is bereft of any metaphysical underpinnings is an imagination (much to the horror of the Vienna Circle).

Perhaps you can argue a case that comprehension of one's environment and faculty of senses develops after a certain age, but declaring these individuals to be on par with atheism is simply an abstraction, since they aren't even in the arena of communication. IOW if an individual can not even begin to comprehend themselves and their environment (much less communicate that comprehension, or lack of it), they are not in a position to be pigeonholed in any metaphysical stance.

(Weak) atheism is simply an abstract tool called upon by (strong) atheists to suggest that they are representing the default position of humanity.
They frequently call upon it to romantically suggest the joy and pleasure of being innocent and "uncontaminated" of theism .... never mind that its also an age where one is dependent on others to remove the crap from one's pants and face a host of complex issues around 3-D motoring, communication and self efficacy (IOW hardly the best position to begin a metaphysical stance from)

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
(weak) atheism is simply an abstraction, since it exists outside of the standard channels that opinion is verified.
”
You are confusing weak atheism with a special case: blank-slate atheism.

lol
will the irony never end?

Most weak atheists - such as myself - exist inside the standard channels without any problems.

And we constitute the majority of atheists - even excluding the children.

Implicit atheism is simply the belief that one can have ideology without value.

Funnily enough, you sometimes see theists with a poor fund of knowledge apply the same general principle in the sad attempt to save a doomed argument.
“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Its commonly brought in to bolster the opinions of (strong) atheists to suggest they are representing the default position of humanity
”
Now you're confusing strong and weak atheists. It's the weak atheists that (correctly) suggest they represent the default position of humanity.

you can't recognize how this is a metaphysical stance?

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
So chairs are also atheist, since they have an absence of concepts about god?
”
Sure, if you like. That doesn't make the metaphysical content of a chair interesting.

The idea of tagging metaphysical content to something that can't make the grade of developed consciousness is certainly amusing

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
well feel free to offer an example of thinking that is bereft of value.

”
There's no need: your incontinence is providing more examples than I can keep up with.

sorry dude

bad choice

Your constant critiques of my statements clearly indicate the values present that you have difficulty with

try again

feel free to offer an example of thinking that is bereft of value


“

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
How does it feel to be the hand that feeds you?
”
Empowering.

Empowering, eh?
how's that for a value?

 

[quadraphonics]

Even you entertain a very specific world view requirement for a (weak) atheist.

Sure, and it's a negative requirement: you specifically must not harbor affirmative belief in a deity.

So when contemplating how they fit in the universe, you don't get a specific response from the atheist world view?

You get many - often mutually-incompatiable - responses from the various atheist worldviews.

I'm not sure why that worries you.

And that's a big mark against you, in my book.

Where I come from, telling other people what they think is considered offensive.

feel free to explain how a lack of affirmative belief in a deity develops a value system that is distinct from an affirmative disbelief in a deity.

Lacks of beliefs don't develop value systems: people do that.

And the systems they develop, starting from the same lack of belief, are often distinct from one another, let alone those associated with different sets of beliefs.

For example, there's a great deal in the Marxist value system that I don't hold with.

The moment you raise the issue of how an atheist believes they exist in relation to their environment is the moment you have beliefs.

And I never suggested that all atheists don't have beliefs. Just that their defining characteristic is the lack of certain very specific beliefs. What affirmative beliefs they may harbor instead, if any, is secondary.

IOW you have a perspective of the greater environment/universe and how that relates to one's sef.

Well, obviously. The implication that this somehow commits me to choose an affirmative stance on the existance of invisible entities that can't measurably affect said greater environment/universe is the absurdity you're hung up on.

You can pretend to dress this up as something valueless/bereft of ideology, but it is clearly a metaphysical stance. IOW an individual takes a slice of their experience and extrapolates that to form a world view.

In short, the notion of an individual who is bereft of any metaphysical underpinnings is an imagination (much to the horror of the Vienna Circle).

I never claimed that I don't have any metaphysical stances. Only that I lack certain specific ones. And that you can't tell a whole lot about the stances I do hold, from that.

Not that you've tried, busy as you've been insisting that I do hold stances which I've just finished telling you that I don't.

IOW if an individual can not even begin to comprehend themselves and their environment (much less communicate that comprehension, or lack of it), they are not in a position to be pigeonholed in any metaphysical stance.

Exactly. And since atheism is defined by the lack of certain metaphysical stances, the situation is clear.

(Weak) atheism is simply an abstract tool called upon by (strong) atheists to suggest that they are representing the default position of humanity.
They frequently call upon it to romantically suggest the joy and pleasure of being innocent and "uncontaminated" of theism .... never mind that its also an age where one is dependent on others to remove the crap from one's pants and face a host of complex issues around 3-D motoring, communication and self efficacy (IOW hardly the best position to begin a metaphysical stance from)

Again, blank-slate atheism is only a small subset of weak atheism.

You are communicating with a weak atheist right now. I don't claim to be innocent or uncontaminated: just disinterested.

 

[lightgigantic]

quadraphonics

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Even you entertain a very specific world view requirement for a (weak) atheist.
”
Sure, and it's a negative requirement: you specifically must not harbor affirmative belief in a deity.

the problem is that even a negative requirement indicates positive values

For instance "I am not wet" suggests that "I am dry"

much like

"I do not have a deity " suggests "I hold that I (or some extension of that "I" .. eg my family, my country, my people, my species, my planet, etc etc) am fulfilling the metaphysical requirements/values of that entity

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
So when contemplating how they fit in the universe, you don't get a specific response from the atheist world view?
”
You get many - often mutually-incompatiable - responses from the various atheist worldviews.

yes - a variety of ego driven value systems .... much like in theism you get a variety of deity driven value systems

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
I'm not sure why that worries you.
”
And that's a big mark against you, in my book.

Where I come from, telling other people what they think is considered offensive.

probably explains why you have no qualms with pigeon holing large populations of humanity on the same metaphysical platform as yourself ... despite their inability to engage in dialogue.

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
feel free to explain how a lack of affirmative belief in a deity develops a value system that is distinct from an affirmative disbelief in a deity.
”
Lacks of beliefs don't develop value systems: people do that.

duh

and it just happens to be a coincidence that lacks of belief find their example in people!

And the systems they develop, starting from the same lack of belief, are often distinct from one another, let alone those associated with different sets of beliefs.

For example, there's a great deal in the Marxist value system that I don't hold with.

obviously not the notion of being the hand that feeds yourself though, eh?

Try again

feel free to explain how a lack of affirmative belief in a deity develops a value system that is distinct from an affirmative disbelief in a deity.

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
The moment you raise the issue of how an atheist believes they exist in relation to their environment is the moment you have beliefs.
”
And I never suggested that all atheists don't have beliefs. Just that their defining characteristic is the lack of certain very specific beliefs. What affirmative beliefs they may harbor instead, if any, is secondary.

on the contrary, you get a very clear pattern of "ego in the environment" beliefs (aka "hand that feeds itself")

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
IOW you have a perspective of the greater environment/universe and how that relates to one's sef.
”
Well, obviously. The implication that this somehow commits me to choose an affirmative stance on the existance of invisible entities that can't measurably affect said greater environment/universe is the absurdity you're hung up on.

It forces you to accept an affirmative stance on existence, full stop (ie :"enter metaphysics")

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
You can pretend to dress this up as something valueless/bereft of ideology, but it is clearly a metaphysical stance. IOW an individual takes a slice of their experience and extrapolates that to form a world view.

In short, the notion of an individual who is bereft of any metaphysical underpinnings is an imagination (much to the horror of the Vienna Circle).
”
I never claimed that I don't have any metaphysical stances. Only that I lack certain specific ones. And that you can't tell a whole lot about the stances I do hold, from that.

"atheist" = a very clear metaphysical stance

Not that you've tried, busy as you've been insisting that I do hold stances which I've just finished telling you that I don't.

The big hold up so far is your inability to recognize that atheism has metaphysical prerequisites (such a sense of ego and the environment .... something not high on the agenda of developing infants or cutlery and chairs for that matter ...)

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
IOW if an individual can not even begin to comprehend themselves and their environment (much less communicate that comprehension, or lack of it), they are not in a position to be pigeonholed in any metaphysical stance.
”
Exactly. And since atheism is defined by the lack of certain metaphysical stances, the situation is clear.

except of course for the blaring obvious that atheism also has metaphysical requirements .... assuming a person wouldn't be so idiotic to identify chairs and cutlery as atheist

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
(Weak) atheism is simply an abstract tool called upon by (strong) atheists to suggest that they are representing the default position of humanity.
They frequently call upon it to romantically suggest the joy and pleasure of being innocent and "uncontaminated" of theism .... never mind that its also an age where one is dependent on others to remove the crap from one's pants and face a host of complex issues around 3-D motoring, communication and self efficacy (IOW hardly the best position to begin a metaphysical stance from)
”
Again, blank-slate atheism is only a small subset of weak atheism.

blank slate atheism is a term you have concocted for the sake of this argument.

You are communicating with a weak atheist right now. I don't claim to be innocent or uncontaminated: just disinterested.

You also claim that you share more of a parallel with an implicit atheist than an explicit one ... which is where it tends to indicate you are ignorant of the values you are harbouring.

 

[quadraphonics]

For instance "I am not wet" suggests that "I am dry"

Sure. But it's not always safe to exclude the middle.

For example:

"I do not have a deity " suggests "I hold that I (or some extension of that "I" .. eg my family, my country, my people, my species, my planet, etc etc) am fulfilling the metaphysical requirements/values of that entity

Which begs the question: what were these metaphysical requirements to begin with? Is it inconceivable that someone could simply accept that the unknowable is just that? That they might even embrace mystery?

If you're asking what an atheist would propose to plug the hole in a theist's mind with, well, there's really no good answer. But that doesn't imply there's a hole in my mind that requires plugging.

probably explains why you have no qualms with pigeon holing large populations of humanity on the same metaphysical platform as yourself ... despite their inability to engage in dialogue.

It's not a pigeonhole: it's a catch-all. If that bothers you, it's exactly because you insist on investing extra meaning in the term.

It forces you to accept an affirmative stance on existence, full stop (ie :"enter metaphysics")

So I can't believe that the universe, and me, both exist, without taking a stand on whether there's an invisible deity animating it?

You understand that there are countless metaphysical beliefs without any necessary relationship to any deities, right? Specifically, most of the really common ones, that deal with actual day-to-day physical existence in the observable universe.

The big hold up so far is your inability to recognize that atheism has metaphysical prerequisites (such a sense of ego and the environment .... something not high on the agenda of developing infants or cutlery and chairs for that matter ...)

Only strong atheism imposes those requirements. There is little required, in order to lack an affirmative belief.

blank slate atheism is a term you have concocted for the sake of this argument.

Indeed. I found it necessary - and convenient - to craft a specific term for the specific sub-category we were discussing, since you persisted in conflating it with the larger category. Why you think this adds up to some indictment of me, remains a mystery.

 

[iceaura]

but they all have a common thread and can hence be determined as atheistic stances and all of them are metaphysical.

No, actually. The Piraha stance as reported by its Western witnesses is adamantly and consciously not metaphysical, for example. There is no "common thread" other than not belonging to the theistic group - "atheistic" is a catchall term, like "miscellaneous".

the person taking part in a cosmos free of a deity certainly would present something however.

Maybe, maybe not.

(as a side point, buddhist, navajo and paraja can easily find their place within henological discourse - or discourse that deals with different gradients of theism)

No, they don't "find their place" in the local theological sandbox. They are assigned "their place" in that toyworld by theists, who begin by simply denying any aspects of them that prove resistant to assignation.

When you start having to label "gradients of theism" as entities in a "henological discourse", you are embarked on a journey whose destination is the dormitive principle school of analysis and whose traveling companions are all the pinhead angels of a thousand years.

 

[lightgigantic]

No, actually. The Piraha stance as reported by its Western witnesses is adamantly and consciously not metaphysical, for example. There is no "common thread" other than not belonging to the theistic group - "atheistic" is a catchall term, like "miscellaneous".

from what I've read about the piraha, they appear to venture into animism (they have "spirits).

The Pirahã have no concept of God or religion. They believe in spirits, though these are not the same kinds of spirits in other cultures. These "spirits" can be jaguars, trees, or other visible, tangible things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirahã_people

I wouldn't be surprised if the whole tirade of them being atheistic is simply some joshed up anti-christian (ie theism = christianity) view put together by some one who doesn't even have the basics in comparative religion.

.... and actually I made that statement before I checked out the wiki link to the contributing author of the piraha people

Influenced by the Pirahã's concept of truth, he slowly lost his Christian faith and became an atheist. He says that he was having serious doubts by 1982, and had lost all faith by 1985 after having spent a year at MIT. He would not tell anyone about his atheism for another 19 years; when he finally did, his marriage ended in divorce and two of his three children broke off all contact.[5]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Everett

Maybe, maybe not.

the notion of an ideology (or world view that incorporates the self and the environment) existing divorced from all issues of value is certainly an imagination ....

No, they don't "find their place" in the local theological sandbox.

If the local theological sandbox includes henological discourse they certainly do .... of course this may not be apparent to western scholars since unless two religions are engaged in killing each other they sometimes find it difficult to ascertain the difference.

They are assigned "their place" in that toyworld by theists, who begin by simply denying any aspects of them that prove resistant to assignation.

er ... let's see

animism
polytheism
and monotheism

Perhaps you would like to make a start by telling us which ones are atheistic.
Bonus points if you can do it without denying things.

When you start having to label "gradients of theism" as entities in a "henological discourse", you are embarked on a journey whose destination is the dormitive principle school of analysis and whose traveling companions are all the pinhead angels of a thousand years.

actually its more about category and sub-category ..... and anyone who has actually come within 10ft of henological discourse can see that the view points are anything but dormative (compare the personal and the impersonal schools for instance) .... but if you want to have an eye out for a self referential argument nothing can beat assigning the term "atheist" to entities that are bereft of the basic prerequisites (such as self efficacy, developed awareness of the self and the environment... or even the ability to control basic bodily functions) ... such as coining new born babies atheist.

 

[lightgigantic]

quadraphonics

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
For instance "I am not wet" suggests that "I am dry"
”
Sure. But it's not always safe to exclude the middle.

if you are moist you are still wet

For example:

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
"I do not have a deity " suggests "I hold that I (or some extension of that "I" .. eg my family, my country, my people, my species, my planet, etc etc) am fulfilling the metaphysical requirements/values of that entity
”
Which begs the question: what were these metaphysical requirements to begin with?

In short, issues of self efficacy (or ideas of personal purpose/capability vs the environment or context of self)

Is it inconceivable that someone could simply accept that the unknowable is just that? That they might even embrace mystery?

meanwhile accepting themselves as the hand that feeds themself .... IOW the term "atheist" has inescapable conclusions about self efficacy.

If you're asking what an atheist would propose to plug the hole in a theist's mind with, well, there's really no good answer. But that doesn't imply there's a hole in my mind that requires plugging.

Ideas about function of the self are so intrinsic to ideas of the self its less than childish to pretend that a "self" can exist outside of them.
(IOW you have a good argument for atheist cutlery and chairs)

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
probably explains why you have no qualms with pigeon holing large populations of humanity on the same metaphysical platform as yourself ... despite their inability to engage in dialogue.
”
It's not a pigeonhole: it's a catch-all. If that bothers you, it's exactly because you insist on investing extra meaning in the term.

On the contrary, you insist on reducing the object of the term (ie "people") to the level of cutlery and chairs

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
It forces you to accept an affirmative stance on existence, full stop (ie :"enter metaphysics")
”
So I can't believe that the universe, and me, both exist, without taking a stand on whether there's an invisible deity animating it?

You can't without taking a stand on your function ... something distinct from say cutlery and chairs

You understand that there are countless metaphysical beliefs without any necessary relationship to any deities, right?

sure

but all of them call upon the same cards of self and environment.

Specifically, most of the really common ones, that deal with actual day-to-day physical existence in the observable universe.

sure
once again

self and environment

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
The big hold up so far is your inability to recognize that atheism has metaphysical prerequisites (such a sense of ego and the environment .... something not high on the agenda of developing infants or cutlery and chairs for that matter ...)
”
Only strong atheism imposes those requirements. There is little required, in order to lack an affirmative belief.

self and environment are certainly not unique to strong atheism

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
blank slate atheism is a term you have concocted for the sake of this argument.
”
Indeed. I found it necessary - and convenient - to craft a specific term for the specific sub-category we were discussing, since you persisted in conflating it with the larger category. Why you think this adds up to some indictment of me, remains a mystery.

hehe

the notion of ideology without values speaks out glaringly no matter which argument it appears in

 

[swarm]

Its amazing how theists can talk about atheism, but they can't produce any deities.

That's all you have to do theists, one little deity and there wouldn't be any atheists at all.

 

[lightgigantic]

Its amazing how theists can talk about atheism, but they can't produce any deities.

no more amazing than one can't produce accurate measurements of distance with a thermometer

That's all you have to do theists, one little deity and there wouldn't be any atheists at all.

fancy that, eh?