10 Jun 13
Originally posted by LemonJello"Further, as I have already pointed out several times, the atheist does not have what he takes to be sufficient reason to believe God exists in the first place." (LemonJello)there is, in fact, a 'willful rejection' on the part of the 'unbeliever' merely by not believing.
Now this statement is "monumentally stupid" if anything in this thread is. Do you honestly not understand that 'willful rejection' refers to a matter of volition on the part of the agent? How could the mere fact that S lacks belief in some ...[text shortened]... tacks, stayed on topic, etc, etc, is "monumentally stupid".
Nice try.
LemonJello, what do you believe?
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyThe general atheist does not hold the belief that God exists. There are different taxonomies of atheism, such as strong or weak forms, and these may carry somewhat differing commitments. But, in all cases, the atheist will lack belief that God exists.
"... the atheist does not have what he takes to be sufficient reason to believe God exists in the first place." (LemonJello)
About what the atheist believes concerning the existence of God and/or any other viable alternative beliefs?
I do not know what you mean by "viable alternative beliefs". The question of whether or not God exists is just a question of whether or not some particular concept 'God' (with some definition thereof) is instantiated or picks out something actual. The theist, with respect to that conception of 'God' , will clearly think the answer is "yes". The atheist will think the answer is "no"; or "I don't know"; or "too fuzzy to say"; or whatever; but, at any rate, it will not be the case that the atheist thinks the answer is "yes".
For whatever reason, you think the answer is "yes" for your particular conception of 'God' but "no" for all the others we could possibly entertain, since yours is some version of monotheism. In my view, the answer is "no" for your particular conception of 'God' and either "no" or "I don't know" for others we could possibly entertain, on case-by-case basis.
10 Jun 13
Originally posted by LemonJelloVery helpful. Please let me ponder your words before replying. Thanks.
The general atheist does not hold the belief that God exists. There are different taxonomies of atheism, such as strong or weak forms, and these may carry somewhat differing commitments. But, in all cases, the atheist will lack belief that God exists.
I do not know what you mean by "viable alternative beliefs". The question of whether or not God exi ...[text shortened]... " for others we could possibly entertain, on case-by-case basis.
10 Jun 13
Originally posted by LemonJello"The general atheist does not hold the belief that God exists. There are different taxonomies of atheism, such as strong or weak forms, and these may carry somewhat differing commitments. But, in all cases, the atheist will lack belief that God exists."
The general atheist does not hold the belief that God exists. There are different taxonomies of atheism, such as strong or weak forms, and these may carry somewhat differing commitments. But, in all cases, the atheist will lack belief that God exists.
I do not know what you mean by "viable alternative beliefs". The question of whether or not God exi ...[text shortened]... " for others we could possibly entertain, on case-by-case basis.
As a small child did you ever experience moments of wonderment over some observation or discovery? Examples of such common phenomena might include amazement while examining an ant or bug; or the height and surface texture of a tall building or tree (while being held in an adult's arms); or peering out of your bedroom window at the moon and stars on a clear night? If so, at the time or days and weeks later, did you consider the possibility of some presence behind it?
10 Jun 13
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyYes, as a small child I experienced many moments of wonderment and awe. I was very inquisitive and engaged with the natural world. I don't recall to what extent as a small child I "considered the possibility of some presence behind it." But as I have matured, I have thought about such topics in some depth, and I do consider the possibility of some presence behind it. That's clearly possible; but it's not very plausible in my opinion. Relatedly, I don't find teleological arguments to be compelling.
"The general atheist does not hold the belief that God exists. There are different taxonomies of atheism, such as strong or weak forms, and these may carry somewhat differing commitments. But, in all cases, the atheist will lack belief that God exists."
As a small child did you ever experience moments of wonderment over some observation ...[text shortened]... he time or days and weeks later, did you consider the possibility of some presence behind it?
Attributing some orchestrating agency behind observed phenomena is one thing; being justified in doing so is another. The inference from some observation of an amazing ant/bug to the idea that there is some overarching agency behind it just sounds like really disjointed, sloppy reasoning to me. I need some actual reasons that connect those together, make sense of the inference, and confer some justificatory status on it as superior to alternative explanations (and superior to just suspension of judgment). That's the way my mind works at this stage in my life, as I am no longer a small child. This is altogether reasonable too, as a healthy filter on my thinking.
By the way, the attribution of agency to which you refer is broadly related to the discussion initiated by sonhouse here: Thread 153539. I do think humans are somewhat disposed to such agency attribution, possibly as a spandrel related to such ideas as the "intentional stance". Even if that is true, however, we can still stand back a bit and ask whether such a disposition would be providing us with well-formed inferences or just sloppy ones.
10 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by wolfgang59"I think atheists in general are more in awe of the natural world than theists."
I think atheists in general are more in awe of the natural world than theists.
Theist: Wow! That is amazing! God did it.
Atheist: Wow! That is amazing! I wonder why that happens?
Wolfgang, I'm inclined to agree this may be a possibility (though not categorically). Estimating the absolute mix percentage of exceptions would indeed become problematical. Question would be, 'why' this bipolar difference of perception?
10 Jun 13
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyNot suggesting it's absolutely bi-polar ... but the fact that some theists know they have the answer to everything negates a curiosity which most
"I think atheists in general are more in awe of the natural world than theists."
Wolfgang, I'm inclined to agree this may be a possibility (though not categorically). Estimating the absolute mix percentage of exceptions would indeed become problematical. Question would be, 'why' this bipolar difference of perception?
atheists have.
e.g. A Christian may look at a rainbow and deduce its god's gift to Man after the flood.
An atheist with no such escape wants to know why and how the rainbow exists.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by wolfgang59Why don't you ask one of the thiests "What do you not know?"
Not suggesting it's absolutely bi-polar ... but the fact that some theists know they have the answer to everything negates a curiosity which most
atheists have.
e.g. A Christian may look at a rainbow and deduce its god's gift to Man after the flood.
An atheist with no such escape wants to know why and how the rainbow exists.
You might be surprised to see what many will admit they do not know.
Originally posted by LemonJello"Yes, as a small child I experienced many moments of wonderment and awe. I was very inquisitive and engaged with the natural world. I don't recall to what extent as a small child I "considered the possibility of some presence behind it." But as I have matured, I have thought about such topics in some depth, and I do consider the possibility of some presence behind it. That's clearly possible; but it's not very plausible in my opinion. Relatedly, I don't find teleological arguments to be compelling."
Yes, as a small child I experienced many moments of wonderment and awe. I was very inquisitive and engaged with the natural world. I don't recall to what extent as a small child I "considered the possibility of some presence behind it." But as I have matured, I have thought about such topics in some depth, and I do consider the possibility of some pres ch a disposition would be providing us with well-formed inferences or just sloppy ones.
Let's allow my conversational speculation that you (as a small child) were blessed with the benefits of caring maternal grandparents and an uncle with a reputation for generosity. Also, let's fictionalize further to give context to two questions: a) Your family resided a great distance from these close relatives. Birthday Cards from and Special Event Phone Conversations with Grandpa & Grandma Lemon became important chapters in your unwritten diary; b) In conversation with your parents, during your first few weeks at home in diapers, Uncle Jello arranged financial provision to cover your entire educational tuition investment and out of pocket expenses as a dormitory student (up to and including the option of earning a doctorate degree). These events and transactions would preclude doubt in your mind that the three human beings were/are real. Finally, you were privileged to eventually meet them in the flesh during your teenage years. Would it be fair to make the logical assumption that the empirical basis for your ancestral knowledge was preceeded by one of faith perception? (gb)
11 Jun 13
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI don't know what you mean. What's 'faith perception'?
"Yes, as a small child I experienced many moments of wonderment and awe. I was very inquisitive and engaged with the natural world. I don't recall to what extent as a small child I "considered the possibility of some presence behind it." But as I have matured, I have thought about such topics in some depth, and I do consider the possibility of so ...[text shortened]... ical basis for your ancestral knowledge was preceeded by one of faith perception? (gb)
11 Jun 13
Originally posted by wolfgang59Please clarify your distinction with its marked difference.
Not suggesting it's absolutely bi-polar ... but the fact that some theists know they have the answer to everything negates a curiosity which most
atheists have.
e.g. A Christian may look at a rainbow and deduce its god's gift to Man after the flood.
An atheist with no such escape wants to know why and how the rainbow exists.
Originally posted by LemonJello"rfvghj67" or whatever name or label describes the basis of a child's acceptance of the reality of these three relatives in what I hoped would become an instructive metaphor. We can abort now if you have no stomach for this simple probe, essential to further inquiry. I hope we can continue unfettered by the noisy apparatus of intellectual defense mechanisms.
I don't know what you mean. What's 'faith perception'?