The need to preach.

Zombrex

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

The problem is you assume I can form a belief in the absence of sufficient knowledge.
But you can't, you must have a kernel of knowledge to begin with to form a belief.

I'm not assuming anything. I don't believe atheism is simple a lack of belief in theism, I think it is a rejection of the claims of theists. If you have never heard of theists claims then it becomes a moot point. Like supposing that someone has arachnophobia in a world without spiders or someone who doesn't collect stamps in a world without stamps.

Rev Hellfire

Wicknight wrote: »

And?

What?

Zombrex

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

What?

I figured you would ask that so I changed my post above.

You seem to be assuming I hold to an idea that I don't.

ColmDawson

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not assuming anything. I don't believe atheism is simple a lack of belief in theism, I think it is a rejection of the claims of theists. If you have never heard of theists claims then it becomes a moot point. Like supposing that someone has arachnophobia in a world without spiders or someone who doesn't collect stamps in a world without stamps.

I think the categories Explicit and Implicit are useful for that kind of thing.

Explicit atheist: someone who has heard the claims of theists and rejects them (is unconvinced by them).

Implicit atheist: someone who hasn't consciously rejected the claims of theism (i.e., has never been introduced to the concept of god).

Rev Hellfire

Wicknight wrote: »

If you have never heard of theists claims then it becomes a moot point. Like supposing that someone has arachnophobia in a world without spiders or someone who doesn't collect stamps in a world without stamps.

Totally agree with you. Thats us bffe.

Rev Hellfire

ColmDawson wrote: »

Implicit atheist: someone who hasn't consciously rejected the claims of theism (i.e., has never been introduced to the concept of god).

Is that like a Implicit theist, someone who hasn't consciously accepted the claims of theism (i.e., has never been introduced to the concept of god) ?

*dog with bone*

ColmDawson

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Is that like a Implicit theist, someone who hasn't consciously accepted the claims of theism (i.e., has never been introduced to the concept of god) ?

*dog with bone*

Do you mean a person who, in isolation, independently invented the concept of god (without being aware of the existing concept)?

I'm not even sure that that would count as implicit, because the person would have consciously accepted their own invented concept.

Rev Hellfire

ColmDawson wrote: »

I'm not even sure that that would count as implicit, because the person would have consciously accepted their own invented concept.

Which is different to an implicit atheist which consciously rejected their own invented concept?

strobe

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

Once again you have just repeated what a previous poster has said but using different examples. And once again, I don't agree with your view point. And thats what it is a view point. I have debated this issue time and time again throughout university and even in my career but I am not so arrogant to believe that what I say is absolute fact. We're dealing with an area that is heavily open to interpretation (whether you like it or not) and my interpretation differs from yours.

I have spent a huge amount of time and energy coming to my conclusions (or lack of). As I have already said I am extremely confident in my stance (which is the only stance that matters to me). For you to say " it really is that simple," when it is blantantly obvious that is not, is imo a bit arrogant and blinkered. It reminds me of certain religious zealots that say the same thing in relation to scriptures ." it really is that simple???" If that was the case why are there numerous books, dissertations,and studies that take a different stance on the issue? Its because its not an exact science...

In your opinion, its simple. But like the word "terrorism" , "Agnosticism" has no definitive definition and is heavily open to interpretation.

I'm just after giving out to myself in another thread for not reading all the posts before responding but still.....

So you are complaining that you have a view point that you don't feel is being respected and then going on to say that your view point is the only one that matters to you? People give thier view point so you object to thier stance profusely but when people object to your view point it gets your back up? I'm hugely confused Ted.....

Carlos_Ray

Wicknight wrote: »

There is no "other side" Theists claim something. If you reject what they say you are an atheist. It is pretty simple.

But I haven't rejected it. Nor have I accepted it. Thats the whole point.

Wicknight wrote: »

That is up to you. I'm not saying you are an atheist. But your idea of what an atheist is seems way off.

Seems way off what? I know exactly what the common definition of atheist is and I'm not one despite what some people are trying to say. Some people believe that if you are not convinced by theism you are automatically an atheist. I don't follow this line of thought. Bottom line is most people on this forum don't agree with me. Thats fine. Doesn't mean that they are correct. I have had the same debate numerous times with a variety of people many agree some don't.

Wicknight wrote: »

Er you seem to be the only one in an argumentative mood. You came onto this forum telling everyone they were wrong and didn't like them. What exactly did you expect would happen?

I never said anyone was wrong. I never said I didn't like anyone. False accusations.

ColmDawson

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Which is different to an implicit atheist which consciously rejected their own invented concept?

An implicit atheist has no concept to reject.

Imagine a tiny island, the inhabitants of which have never come into contact with outsiders. The people there have also never invented the cultural response 'god' to any of their problems or questions. They simply don't have an idea of a god. They are implicit atheists because they haven't encountered the idea of god.

Rev Hellfire

ColmDawson wrote: »

An implicit atheist has no concept to reject.

Imagine a tiny island, the inhabitants of which have never come into contact with outsiders. The people there have also never invented the cultural response 'god' to any of their problems or questions. They simply don't have an idea of a god. They are implicit atheists because they haven't encountered the idea of god.

But if they're totally unaware they're equally accepting of the idea so they're also implicit theists. Its like they're some crazy quantum a/theist duality.

Carlos_Ray

strobe wrote: »

I'm just after giving out to myself in another thread for not reading all the posts before responding but still.....

So you are complaining that you have a view point that you don't feel is being respected and then going on to say that your view point is the only one that matters to you? People give thier view point so you object to thier stance profusely but when people object to your view point it gets your back up? I'm hugely confused Ted.....

Nothing really to be confused about. I respect everybodys view point but ultimately (when it comes to this matter) the only view point that I should care about is my own. Likewise the only view point that should concern you is yours. I have not tried to preach my own view, I have merely responded to others who say that my view is "simply wrong." In reality the thread is destined to go around in circles with users re-introducing the same examples and ideas while adding nothing to the overall discussion. Its pretty stale already.

ColmDawson

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

But if they're totally unaware they're equally accepting of the idea so they're also implicit theists. Its like they're some crazy quantum a/theist duality.

What? No they're not.
To be theists, they would need a concept of god. They don't have a concept of god, so they are not theists.

To be atheists, they don't need any concept of god. They don't have a concept of god, so they are atheists.

Their atheism is implicit because they did not have a concept of god to reject or be unconvinced by. Atheism is the default position.

Perhaps it's time to bring out the trusty and versatile non-stamp collector analogy...

Forget god for the moment. Suppose instead that the islanders have no postal service and have never encountered and never heard of postage stamps. They are not simultaneously stamp collectors and non-stamp collectors. They are simply non-stamp collectors.

Rev Hellfire

ColmDawson wrote: »

What? No they're not.
To be theists, they would need a concept of god. They don't have a concept of god, so they are not theists.

To be atheists, they don't need any concept of god. They don't have a concept of god, so they are atheists.

Their atheism is implicit because they did not have a concept of god to reject or be unconvinced by. Atheism is the default position.

Perhaps it's time to bring out the trusty and versatile non-stamp collector analogy...

Forget god for the moment. Suppose instead that the islanders have no postal service and have never encountered and never heard of postage stamps. They are not simultaneously stamp collectors and non-stamp collectors. They are simply non-stamp collectors.

Ahh I get you, so there's no consciousness required to being an atheist, its simply defined as not being an theist, that I can accept.

See liam rocks are athiests

ColmDawson

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Ahh I get you, so there's no consciousness required to being an atheist, its simply defined as not being an theist, that I can accept.

See liam rocks are athiests

Phew, glad we got that sorted!

As for rocks...

ColmDawson wrote: »

However, I'll venture the suggestion that the term 'atheist' can only be appropriately used in relation to a creature that is capable of being a theist.

Rev Hellfire

ColmDawson wrote: »

Phew, glad we got that sorted!

As for rocks...

Are rocks theists ? no ergo they're atheist

But ignoring that for a time, is a infant capable of being a theist (not becoming one) at say a week old ?
I'd argue no more than the rock, neither has the ability at that moment to puzzle out the idea. Therefore babies can't be atheists.

liamw

Wicknight wrote: »

I'm not assuming anything. I don't believe atheism is simple a lack of belief in theism, I think it is a rejection of the claims of theists.

Carlos_Ray wrote: »

But I haven't rejected it. Nor have I accepted it. Thats the whole point.

Carlos has a point there. The thing is I don't think you have to assertively know and reject theist beliefs to be atheist.

Wicknight, why do you have to reject the beliefs? The word 'reject' suggests an understanding and consequent reasoned decision to not believe. Perhaps this is not what you mean by the word.

ColmDawson

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Are rocks theists ? no ergo they're atheist

But ignoring that for a time, is a infant capable of being a theist (not becoming one) at say a week old ?
I'd argue no more than the rock, neither has the ability at that moment to puzzle out the idea. Therefore babies can't be atheists.

Yes, it seems reasonable to avoid the use of the term until the child is old enough to be capable of believing in gods.
I'm no expert on child psychology but I suspect that as soon as a child is capable of believing in something (anything), it is then also capable of believing that a god exists. I don't know at what point in child development that ability comes.

ColmDawson

liamw wrote: »

Carlos has a point there. The thing is I don't think you have to assertively know and reject theist beliefs to be atheist.

Wicknight, why do you have to reject the beliefs? The word 'reject' suggests an understanding and consequent reasoned decision to not believe. Perhaps this is not what you mean by the word.

I do think the word 'reject' can be too easily taken to mean that one thinks the claims of theism are definitely wrong. I prefer 'be unconvinced by'.

Rev Hellfire

ColmDawson wrote: »

Yes, it seems reasonable to avoid the use of the term until the child is old enough to be capable of believing in gods.
I'm no expert on child psychology but I suspect that as soon as a child is capable of believing in something (anything), it is then also capable of believing that a god exists. I don't know at what point in child development that ability comes.

Excellent so we are in agreement that you must be capable of having understanding of the topic before you can be an atheist yes?

So those island dwellers blissfully unaware of gods or goddesses, how do they differ since they also are unable to consider the idea until they have considered it. I'm sure you see where I'm going with this.

If I have an unknown belief in my mind. what would your default opinion of it be until such time as I reveal it to you ?

The crux of it for me is knowledge and the ability to reason.

ColmDawson

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Excellent so we are in agreement that you must be capable of having understanding of the topic before you can be an atheist yes?

So those island dwellers blissfully unaware of gods or goddesses, how do they differ since they also are unable to consider the idea until they have considered it. I'm sure you see where I'm going with this.

If I have an unknown belief in my mind. what would your default opinion of it be until such time as I reveal it to you ?

The crux of it for me is knowledge and the ability to reason.

I had a feeling you might go down this road; I should have been more clear earlier.

The islanders are mentally capable of considering the concept of god. The rock and the baby are not.

This allows the term 'atheist' to be applied to non-human sentient beings (you were hypothesising earlier about Dawkins-reading extra-terrestrials).

Zombrex

liamw wrote: »

Wicknight, why do you have to reject the beliefs? The word 'reject' suggests an understanding and consequent reasoned decision to not believe. Perhaps this is not what you mean by the word.

It is what I mean.

A theist makes his case.

I say "Nope, that doesn't convince me, I think you are making that up"

Therefore I reject theism. Atheist in its most literal sense means to reject God. Since I don't think God exists to reject it means to reject the claim of the existence of God, ie the claims of theists.

I personally don't think you need a word for someone who doesn't believe in something they have never heard of. If that were the case you require a word for anything since there is an infinite number of things I don't believe in and have never heard of.

Rev Hellfire

ColmDawson wrote: »

I had a feeling you might go down this road; I should have been more clear earlier.

The islanders are mentally capable of considering the concept of god. The rock and the baby are not.

This allows the term 'atheist' to be applied to non-human sentient beings (you were hypothesising earlier about Dawkins-reading extra-terrestrials).

The problem is they aren't capable of considering the concept of god until such time as they have it revealed to them or tease it out for themselves.

They can't be implicit atheists (or theists) until they are equipped with the ability to consider it. At which point they are no longer capable of being implicit atheists/theists. As a concept it doesn't make logical sense.

pH

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Are rocks theists ? no ergo they're atheist

Finally you got it.

ColmDawson

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

The problem is they aren't capable of considering the concept of god until such time as they have it revealed to them or tease it out for themselves.

They can't be implicit atheists (or theists) until they are equipped with the ability to consider it. At which point they are no longer capable of being implicit atheists/theists. As a concept it doesn't make logical sense.

Are suggesting there's no such thing as implicit atheism?

I am saying that there's a difference between a baby, who doesn't have the mental power to believe in god, and a person who does have the mental power but has not been exposed to the idea of god. The latter is an implicit atheist.

DeVore

So they are temporal implicit atheists since they will grow to have the capacity to consider it??


My job here is done.... *walks out, closes door, house explodes*

DeV

Rev Hellfire

ColmDawson wrote: »

Are suggesting there's no such thing as implicit atheism?

Of course you can have implicit atheism (maybe, I'll need to think about it), its implicit atheists you can't have.

ColmDawson

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Of course you can have implicit atheism (maybe, I'll need to think about it), its implicit atheists you can't have.

Could you explain how it is possible to have implicit atheism but not implicit atheists?

Rev Hellfire

ColmDawson wrote: »

Could you explain how it is possible to have implicit atheism but not implicit atheists?

Sure, if rocks are atheists, then you can have implicit atheists.
But if rocks (or others unable to consider the concept of god at this particular moment) can't be atheists, then you can't have implicit atheists.

But either way the concept of implicit atheism is not dependent on the rocks.

Its all in the rocks really.