I consider this a bad or false equivalency, at least as far as serious philosophical or theological arguments about the nature of god go.

I think that, for example "Santa" or the "Tooth Fairy" is more akin to something from one of Jung's Archetypes, which is a simplistic representational image.

However, most arguments about the nature of God are referring to something abstract; even during the medieval days of the church, the images of God were not said to be "God" himself, but images used to represent God.

So this would be the equivalent of dismissing the idea of alien life on the basis of equating it with belief in Marvin the Martian, or that a person speculating about alien life would assume it would actually look like Marvin the Martian.

This is why most arguments about beliefs in god and what they consisted of to begin with are archaic cultural myths; which falsely reduce it to belief in an simplistic graven image or stereotypical "fairy tale" written on a level for young children, when in reality the actual beliefs, texts, and speculations were much deeper thought and abstraction, contrary to popular myths on the subject and so forth, usually themselves based on ignorance or misinformation, or simple cultural myths about "religion" itself, what it is, and what it consists of, handed down in childhood themselves, not remotely historically, philosophically, or theologically accurate at all.

(Such as most of the nonsense, anti-intellectual cultural myths and fables about Francis Bacon's 17th century scientific method, and the development and overarching cultural significance of the various theories invented and contained within and thereof).

I'm not equivocating the contents of the beliefs at all. Insert any belief you want into there, serious or frivolous, and the pattern still holds: nobody starts off believing that. They acquire it belief in it (through being taught it or otherwise). Early in life it's easy to acquire false beliefs because we're impressionable kids. As we get older we (hopefully) start to weed them out, and so (hopefully) grow out of those false beliefs.

You keep diverting the conversation away from this really simple statement into irrelevant other topics.

If your dispute is just that theism is not a false belief and so not something to be outgrown, just say that.

My argument is simple, the belief may be acquired, but the contents of the belief or what the belief consists of are separate from the belief (or lack thereof itself).

For example, if you were never taught that the Eifel Tower was in Paris, France, would it still be in Paris France?

I would argue yes; arguing otherwise would be akin to solipsism, or the idea that no truth exists unless you "believe" it to be so.

So one couldn't immediately dismiss the legitimacy of a belief simply because it was taught or indoctrinated.

For example, if you were never taught that the Eifel Tower was in Paris, France, would it still be in Paris France? — IvoryBlackBishop

Of course.

Again, you're diverting the topic into something irrelevant.

one couldn't immediately dismiss the legitimacy of a belief simply because it was taught — IvoryBlackBishop

I never said one could.

You asked how someone could be born an atheist and still grow out of theism. I answered. The rest of this is you arguing against shadows.

Or as another example, some people say that one was taught about hell in order to 'get them to behave'.

However, one may have also been taught that it was illegal to steal, to 'get them to behave' as well; and as far as the law goes, this is true.

So was it "wrong" to do so, or does the fact that it was taught to 'get one to behave' de-legitimize it itself?

Or if nothing else, this would de-legitimize the notion that a "theist" only does right out of fear of "punishment" by god; since by the same token, one who is an atheist may only do what is right out of "fear of the law", rather than higher moral sentiments.

I'm arguing one could be taught atheism and grow out of it into theism, conversely.

If atheism were false and theism were true, sure. Like I said:

If your dispute is just that theism is not a false belief and so not something to be outgrown, just say that. — Pfhorrest

DingoJones
1.4k
Your very first post to me was condescending...and damn near every post since has had tinges of condescension rippling through it. That is one of the reasons I am not showing as much respect to you that I normally do to people with whom I am in discussion.
— Frank Apisa

I don’t care. Keep these little self important diatribes to yourself....like its my fault I have to talk to you like a child because your too dense to understand things at a higher level.

Here you start off with a pretense that I am saying it is not acceptable to continue making your point...despite my specific answer to your question on that issue being, "Yes, make any arguments you want...that is your right."
— Frank Apisa

Holy shit. I explained I had to ask questions to make my point, then you said go ahead and make your point but im not answering any more questions. You are not paying attention, you are just waiting to continue soapboxing.

I suspect this "what is the meaning of need" crap is just an extension of that condescension.
— Frank Apisa

A very dim witted suspicion. I was trying to clarify your use of “need”, so that I could answer your irrelevant question in an attempt at communicating with you despite the giant chip on your shoulder and obtuse, deaf and ranting disposition.

Anyway, to show you at least a modicum of respect so that we might get this discussion back on track, I am simply going to ignore that question...so it won't be counted.
— Frank Apisa

The respect of a moron who cannot track more than one thing at a time is not required for discussion. The discussion is on track when both parties act in good faith (which you aren't) and when both parties are paying attention to what the other is trying to say. (Which you are also not doing, unless you are being dishonest and/or some kind of idiot).

Answer my question as written. You do not need any further explanation of the words I used.
— Frank Apisa

No you goofy prick, YOU are not the one who decides if I need clarification. How can you not understand such simplicity?!
Clarification is for the person trying to understand, me in this case. The best person to determine if I understand your question is me, not you.

Now, you are an atheist whether you like it or not, you are just too stupid on too many levels and in too many ways to comprehend how utterly void of merit your protests that you are not an atheist really are.
Like your comprehension levels, your little tantrums are childish And are an obstacle to having any kind of meaningful discussion with you.
You need to get your head out of your ass, as you are not nearly the intellect you think you are, nor is your position anywhere near as strong as you think it is. Removing your head from your ass will help with that. Then, you need to clean the shit from your ears (a result of having your head up your ass, no doubt) and fucking listen to whats being said to you. Pay attention, some people are actually interested in discourse, back and forth, learning...instead of just blathering the same witless garbage and ignoring anything that stands in the way of repeating the same, defenceless, vacant drivel the way you do.

I suggest you shut the fuck up and save whatever pathetic response you cook up, because while Im tired of trying to use reason and logic to get through that thick fucking skull of yours but I feel positively invigorated to continue pointing out the ways in which you have completely, epically failed to make your case or even understand the simplest concept...you will get more of the same from me going forward. I mean, I know your inflated, toddler ego will not let you and it will be irresistible for you but try...just try, to shut your stupid mouth Long enough to notice or learn something. — DingoJones

So...a lecture from you on how to post reasonably and politely...in a screed like this.

Too funny for words.

So...I take it that you are not going to answer my question.

Okay...I didn't think you would.

↪Frank Apisa I'm not having this conversation again, it's dumb and you're just factually wrong.

There is "weak", "soft", or "implicit" atheism which is lack of belief in God.

There is "strong", "hard", or "explicit" atheism which is belief in the lack of God.

The former is just anyone who is not a theist. The latter are a subset of the former. Typical (but not all) agnostics fall within the former but not the latter. You're one of them I take it. I don't care what you identify as, that's what words mean.

I expect this has already been explained to you upthread, which is why I haven't been reading this thread until now. This argument is old and stupid and pointless because people like you aren't interested in productive conversation. — Pfhorrest

But here you are...having the conversation.

It must draw you in more than you think.

In any case...I am no more an atheist because I lack a "belief" that gods exist...

...than I am a theist because I lack a "belief" that gods do not exist.

But I understand the atheists who want agnostics in their numbers.

It would improve the gene pool.

In any case...I am no more an atheist because I lack a "belief" that gods exist... — Frank Apisa

Yes you are. That's what words mean.

You can also be an agnostic. They're not mutually exclusive.

...than I am a theist because I lack a "belief" that gods do not exist. — Frank Apisa

That's because that's not what "theism" means.

You're either a theist or not. Not-theists are atheists.

Pfhorrest
1.1k
↪IvoryBlackBishop I wasn't arguing against "indoctrination". I didn't even use that word.

I was explaining how it can both be the case that babies are born atheists, and atheism is something people outgrow. If a false believe is instilled at an impressionable young age, someone will hopefully grow out of it as they mature and investigate their beliefs critically. Nobody is born with any beliefs though, so in that case the babies are born lacking the belief, get it instilled at a young age, and then grow out of it.

If the beliefs instilled at a young age are not false, then they are not so likely to be grown out of, and that's fine. — Pfhorrest

Babies are not born atheists...even if the atheists of the world are so hard up for greater numbers that they pretend everyone who lacks a "belief" in gods...is an atheist.

And you guys claim that you immersed in logic, reason, and science.

What a joke!

Babies are not born atheists... — Frank Apisa

Yes they are.

everyone who lacks a "belief" in gods...is an atheist — Frank Apisa

That's what words mean.

Pfhorrest
1.1k
In any case...I am no more an atheist because I lack a "belief" that gods exist...
— Frank Apisa

Yes you are. — Pfhorrest

NO...I am not an atheist. And the more I speak with atheists in this forum...the less likely I am to ever want to be considered one.

That's what words mean.

That was a truly lousy sentence. If you clean it up a bit...I might show you how absurd it is.

You can also be an agnostic. They're not mutually exclusive.

We are all agnostics.

But we are not all atheists. I, for instance, am not an atheist.

...than I am a theist because I lack a "belief" that gods do not exist.
— Frank Apisa

That's because that's not what "theism" means.

What does "theism" mean, Pf?

You're either a theist or not. Not-theists are atheists.

Oh, is that the dichotomy you think exists.

Well I do not.

What about...either you are a theist...or you are not a theist. Some of the people who are not theists use the descriptor atheist...and some use the descriptor agnostic?

That is all "atheist" is...a descriptor that one can use if one chooses...or not, if that is the choice.

But I understand. Atheists want to inflate their numbers with more intelligent people...so they want to take possession of agnostics.

Good luck with that.

Pfhorrest
1.1k
Babies are not born atheists...
— Frank Apisa

Yes they are. — Pfhorrest

Actually, no...they are not.

everyone who lacks a "belief" in gods...is an atheist
— Frank Apisa

No...some of us are agnostics. I wouldn't be an atheist on a bet.

That's what words mean.

You ought really to learn how to write that sentence coherently.

We are all agnostics. — Frank Apisa

Apparently you don't know what "agnostic" means either. This is fun </sarcasm>.

What does "theism" mean, Pf? — Frank Apisa

Belief in God (or gods).

Oh, is that the dichotomy you think exists.

Well I do not. — Frank Apisa

Well the principle of bivalence disagrees.

What about...either you are a theist...or you are not a theist — Frank Apisa

That is literally what I said.

Some of the people who are not theists use the descriptor atheist...and some use the descriptor agnostic? — Frank Apisa

Sure. But how people choose to describe themselves has nothing to do with the actual categories of possibilities. Someone can choose to call themselves a "freethinker" or a "bright" or a "humanist" or a "skeptic" or something else instead, and maybe they are also those things, but if they don't believe in God then they are also atheists.

everyone who lacks a "belief" in gods...is an atheist
— Frank Apisa

No...some of us are agnostics. I wouldn't be an atheist on a bet. — Frank Apisa

You're literally arguing against yourself here. You quoted yourself and then argued against it.

You ought really to learn how to write that sentence coherently. — Frank Apisa

You really ought to learn how to read.

Re: "OP confusion", etc ...

I pointed out in parenthesis the levels of abstraction to which "knowledge" and "belief" obtain in the (hybrid) epistemology I'm assuming. Explanations and descriptions, respectively - the latter being constituents of, but which neither exhaust nor presuppose, the former.  (Antiquated "JTB" is as incoherent to a falsificationist (like me) as "teleology" is useless to evolutionist (also like me.))

EDIT: Ok, how about this: by "belief" I mean assent, without warrant (i.e. falsified OR unfalsifiable) and by "knowledge" assent, with warrant (i.e. tested but not (yet) falsified) -- clearer? :smile:

Except that agnostic claims the proposition at issue is undecidable by her (vide Pyrrho, Agrippa, Sextus Empiricus et al): ergo epoché (i.e. a + gnosis).

I feel that you and I have very different writing styles...so if neither of us are making any headway (and DingoJones has put in some serious effort as well), I am not sure this will go anywhere. I sometimes get bored of these arguments... — ZhouBoTong

Agreed.

I agree with your position 4.

I bel[ie]ve that the existence of god [ ... ] any attribution to that is mere fantasy, or else a lie. Heck we don't know anything about him, and nothing of his attributes. Event his attribute of existence is hidden from us. — god must be atheist

:up:

Good ol' Frankie doing double duty in a Stealers Wheel ... :clap:

So...a lecture from you on how to post reasonably and politely...in a screed like this. — Frank Apisa

No dipshit, I didnt say anything about polite. You have very poor reading comprehension levels.

So...I take it that you are not going to answer my question. — Frank Apisa

Correct, your dishonesty overshadows my desire to do so. You are acting in bad faith here, your true interest is running your stupid mouth. So no.

Okay...I didn't think you would. — Frank Apisa

Yes, not thinking. Your specialty.

:smirk:

No one can reasonably claim I didnt give him every chance to have a reasonable discussion....well, aside from having to try and slow things down and walk him through it but I didnt know how else to talk to someone with the reading comprehension of a toddler except to talk to them like a person with the reading comprehension of a toddler. He didnt even get that!

Folks like him need it most because they (will) never get it. Sweep out the tide, tilt at windmills & curse the darkness, here in the agora we rodeo clowns can only distract incorrigible bulls___ with critical clarity so that others don't gets hurt (i.e. even more confused!) Worthy effort, DJ. :up:

Lol, thanks. I was sincerely trying.

Having been on this Forum for several years now - and occasionally posting - I should be used to this sort of discussion. But yet I'm still startled by the, umm. . . . intensity of feelings regarding the correct definition/usage of the words atheist and agnostic.

Yes, yes (I hear you saying) much of philosophy involves definition of terms. But in this case, I submit to all parties that the definitional war has been decided by the general public. The conversations in this thread would be incomprehensible to the average person. If you were to ask the average person on the street to define what an atheist thinks/believes they would most likely say either "That person does not believe in God" or "That person denies that God exists". For agnostic they would most likely say "That person neither believes nor dis-believes in God".

Yes, these are very loose imprecise statements - in fact it seems that we cannot even agree on the definition of the word belief. So I respectfully suggest that people be allowed to choose whatever word best fits their their thinking and then let them give the devilish details. If after hearing the details you feel that a different word would more accurately describe their thinking, then simply say "If someone were to ask me what word to use to label your thinking, I would use a different word. This different word would more accurately describe the details behind your thinking."

EDIT: Ok, how about this: by "belief" I mean assent, without warrant (i.e. falsified OR unfalsifiable) and by "knowledge" assent, with warrant (i.e. test but not (yet) falsified) -- clearer? :smile: — 180 Proof

I'm trying to understand what you're getting at, so I went back through some of your posts. This one seems relevant:

theistic claims about, or predicates ascribed to, g/G, according to scripture, creed, or dogmatic theology, are easily - like shooting fish in a barrel - falsified. — 180 Proof

I almost agree with this, except for one caveat: you can't falsify personal experience. If someone believes Jesus Christ is talking to them, and that he is affirming their beliefs, you cannot defeat that person's belief. Setting that aside, I completely agree that belief in a god of religion cannot be (otherwise) warranted....but...

Belief in deism (a generic creator who is the foundation of existence and having some form of intentionality), may be warrantable. I'm not sure, but I am sure defeating it is NOT shooting fish in a barrel.

..."these are very loose imprecise statements..."

They are imprecise if you cross two different concepts: to believe and to affirm.
In the academic world it is understood that an atheist is one who denies that god exists and an agnostic is one who neither denies nor affirms. The theist asserts that god exists.
It seems simple enough and clear enough.

The mess has been made by certain associations of atheists who claim that they have no beliefs and therefore should not justify their position. This is absurd. Believe it or not, affirm it or not, in a rational debate your position must be reasoned.

"I think the definition of atheism “lacking belief in god” is the most sensible. This is accurate because all atheists lack a belief in god, it is the common denominator of the atheist category, and that makes it definitive of what an atheist is."


Atheism is a name. It's a word that people use to refer to kinds of things: There are people who claim that there is no god. There are people who believe that god exists. There are people who neither affirm nor deny. There are people who do not believe that god exists. The group of non-believers is broader than those who refrain from affirming or denying. These are facts. You have to give them names. It is a matter of mere convenience. They are useful fot communication or not.
If there are different uses, you will have to clarify them.

But the reason you give is not reasonable. You can distinguish the group of agnostics from atheists, as Frank does, within the more general group of unbelievers without problem.

In the academic world it is understood that an atheist is one who denies that god exists — David Mo

Having been through the academic world: nope. An atheist is just someone who doesn't affirm that god exists. People who deny that god exists are, obviously, a subset of that.

The mess has been made by certain associations of atheists who claim that they have no beliefs and therefore should not justify their position. This is absurd. Believe it or not, affirm it or not, in a rational debate your position must be reasoned. — David Mo

Careful. Under critical rationalism (the correct rationalism, which underlies science), one only needs to justify claims to others, not one's own opinions. To demand that nobody hold a claim without reason is to demand that they accept the contrary claim without reason. To not ask anyone to accept any claims without reasons to back them up is simultaneously to allow anyone to hold any opinion of their own without demanding they present reasons to back it up.

The group of unbelievers includes atheists and agnostics. This is what is said among experts, including the one who coined the term "agnostic": Thomas Huxley. You think that's bad?

Why don't you believe in God? I think you have a reason: there is not any reason to believr in god.

We have no choice in birth, that is one reason to believe in a higher power.

It also implies great mathematical ability, given the amount of births, and types of life.

We do not know how the universe came about. There's lot's of creation going on in the universe, it's probable someone draws the link between creation and how the universe came to exist.

God isn't the most scientific term to describe a higher power/creator, and Christianity is probably not the best way to go about worshipping it.

I'm an Atheist, I rule out God, but I don't rule out higher powers or a creator.

DingoJones
1.4k
So...a lecture from you on how to post reasonably and politely...in a screed like this.
— Frank Apisa

No dipshit, I didnt say anything about polite. You have very poor reading comprehension levels.

So...I take it that you are not going to answer my question.
— Frank Apisa

Correct, your dishonesty overshadows my desire to do so. You are acting in bad faith here, your true interest is running your stupid mouth. So no.

Okay...I didn't think you would.
— Frank Apisa

Yes, not thinking. Your specialty. — DingoJones

Well...when I am wrong, I acknowledge that I am wrong...so...

...I thought you were an intelligent person, Dingo.

My bad.

Good points, Eric.

I'm not a fan of labels or descriptor in any case, but when an Internet atheist insists that I, and all babies, are atheist by definition...it bugs me.

I attempt to discuss it with as much diligence as possible...and thought things were going fine in my discussion with Dingo, even though he seemed compulsive about calling me stupid. (I am far from stupid.)

And then he went ape-shit...totally lost his cool.

Surprised me. I thought this forum was above that sort of thing.

Oh, well.