2 edits
Originally posted by Rank outsiderDoes Atheism accept God or gods? Didn't you go yes and no at one point
No it hasn't. You haven't asked "an atheist" what he/she believes.
You have asked "atheism" what it believes. Which is meaningless.
If you want to know what atheists believe, can I suggest you take the wholly novel step for you and actually ask them.
Whilst the answers won't always be the same, they will be a damn sight more consistent than the answers Christians give to some questions about the Bible.
in the discussion? It seems that no matter what nothing can be laid at
the Atheist feet, Monotheist believe in a God may differ on God but they
are not going to deny they believe in God, Polytheist will acknowledge they
believe in more than one god. While Atheist who it seems from time to time
agree with rocks and newborns in how they think about God and gods want
to also say they believe when it suits them in God and gods.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJaySo do theists believe in multiple gods, or a single God. It seems to me that you used both stances in your post.
Does Atheism accept God or gods? Didn't you go yes and no at one point
in the discussion? It seems that no matter what nothing can be laid at
the Atheist feet, Monotheist believe in a God may differ on God but they
are not going to deny they believe in God, Polytheist will acknowledge they
believe in more than one god. While Atheist who it seems from ti ...[text shortened]... nk about God and gods want
to also say they believe when it suits them in God and gods.
Kelly
The problem is you are perfectly OK subcategorizing theists and admitting that they have a significant range of belief, but you can't seem to handle the possibility that atheists can also have a range of beliefs with subcategories.
A decent (and aptly titled) book for those who think atheism is not a belief or that babies are atheist may be Atheism for Dummies, Dale McGowan copyright 2013. Not a word about babies or "implicit atheism"; a lot of words about how atheism is a reaction or response to theism.
Another example (they are so easy to find) from The Dictionary of Atheism, Skepticism and Humanism, Bill Cooke copyright 2006, and its entry for the term "atheism": An attitude of skepticism towards claims of the existence of any sort of God or gods.
If we were to look at Monotheism, Polytheism, and Atheism in programming
as variables. What we would see the values as follows.
Monotheism would be one.
Polytheism would be greater than one.
Atheism would be zero; however, many here would claim it is an undefined
variable which is to say they cannot owe up to making a positive stand on
what they claim is true. So I suppose they are Agnostic want a be instead.
Kelly
Originally posted by apathistI can accept Cooke's definition without altering anything that I have said on the subject. An "attitude of skepticism" is not a belief, however, and could be taken to exclude those who believe that not-G, as opposed to those who withhold belief that G (as has been stated, propositions of differing content).
A decent (and aptly titled) book for those who think atheism is not a belief or that babies are atheist may be Atheism for Dummies, Dale McGowan copyright 2013. Not a word about babies or "implicit atheism"; a lot of words about how atheism is a reaction or response to theism.
Another example (they are so easy to find) from The Dictionary of Atheism, Ske ...[text shortened]... An attitude of skepticism towards claims of the existence of any sort of God or gods.
Originally posted by vistesdAn attitude of skepticism while rejecting everything pretty much just allows
I can accept Cooke's definition without altering anything that I have said on the subject. An "attitude of skepticism" is not a belief, however, and could be taken to exclude those who believe that not-G, as opposed to those who withhold belief that G (as has been stated, propositions of differing content).
you to pick a side while denying it.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayThe fact is that you expect people to 'take a side' with respect to the possible existence of an undefined or at best vaguely defined entity / entities.
An attitude of skepticism while rejecting everything pretty much just allows
you to pick a side while denying it.
Kelly
I simply cannot take a side if I don't know enough about the entity/entities in question to make an informed decision. I generally take the default (skeptical) stance with respect to any entity ie that it probably doesn't exist unless there is some reason to think it does. This is based purely on the observation that there are vastly more non-existent things than existent things.
I do take a stance (I deny its existence) with respect to particular entities that have been somewhat better defined, such as the Biblical God, but taking such a stance is not atheism as it is only one possible God, and there are theists who equally deny its existence.
I do not however claim that no God/gods exist however loosely defined, and I don't think you will find a single person who does. So your category of 'atheist' as someone who denies the existence of all possible Gods probably contains no members at all and is of no value.
Originally posted by Proper KnobYou can say you don't have a hobby of collecting stamps, just as if you
Here's one I came across the other day which I thought was quite good.
'My atheism is a 'belief system' as much as my non-collecting of stamps is a hobby.'
could claim you do have the hobby of collecting stamps if you did. The truth
would be if you did or did not, and not being asked about your hobby of
collecting stamps does not change the facts on if you do or not.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayBut him not collecting stamps, is not a hobby, and newborn babes do not collect stamps as a hobby, so they are part of the 'do not have a stamp collecting hobby' group. Both he and babies are 'a-stamp collectors'.
You can say you don't have a hobby of collecting stamps, just as if you
could claim you do have the hobby of collecting stamps if you did. The truth
would be if you did or did not, and not being asked about your hobby of
collecting stamps does not change the facts on if you do or not.
Kelly
Originally posted by vistesdI don't see how to accept that an "attitude of skepticism" is not a belief.
I can accept Cooke's definition without altering anything that I have said on the subject. An "attitude of skepticism" is not a belief, however, and could be taken to exclude those who believe that not-G, as opposed to those who withhold belief that G (as has been stated, propositions of differing content).
The two main varieties of atheism both require decisions. Decide to believe that not-G, or decide to not-believe that G. You seem to claim that deciding to not-believe is in fact not a belief. I don't agree. All our decisions require belief.
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper KnobNice! As the inventor of "babies are atheist in the same way that dead people are people", I appreciate both the value and the worthlessness of your comment.
Here's one I came across the other day which I thought was quite good.
'My atheism is a 'belief system' as much as my non-collecting of stamps is a hobby.'
2 edits
Originally posted by apathistWell, if you're going to confuse having an attitude with belief-formation—and withholding belief from holding a belief—then there's not much else to say. You’re just confused. You might look up “skepticism”, though.
I don't see how to accept that an "attitude of skepticism" is not a belief.
The two main varieties of atheism both require decisions. Decide to believe that not-G, or decide to not-believe that G. You seem to claim that deciding to not-believe is in fact not a belief. I don't agree. All our decisions require belief.
EDIT: One can certainly maintain an attitude of skepticism toward a claim without denying the possibility of the claim. Doubt is not the same as denial. When you talk about decision, though, this goes to the distinction between “theoretical” (or philosophical) atheism and “practical” atheism, which has already been discussed.
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayIt seems there are two possibilities here:
An attitude of skepticism while rejecting everything pretty much just allows
you to pick a side while denying it.
Kelly
1. The putative skeptic is dishonest, and has a secret agenda to reject “everything” without disclosing her position—such a person is not really a skeptic.
2. The putative skeptic has rejected all arguments made thus far, and (a) does not know what other arguments might be made and/or (b) doubts that there are any plausible arguments that could be made—but does not reject the possibility. In this case, she really is an honest skeptic.
The first person above is merely pretending to hold final judgment in abeyance; the second person does hold final judgment in abeyance, even if she doubts that an affirmative judgment is likely based on arguments made thus far.