Misconceptions about theism and atheism

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
21

Oh come on Faust, don’t dismiss me as un-serious. If your going to have some cereal or something that’s fine, but this is no way to bow out.

I have not called tables porridge or vice-versa. I have not asked any question in insincerity. However, your conclusion is false. Is the necessary corrollary to my statement that beliefs mean nothing? Yes and no, actually. Your beliefs mean nothing to mine and mine nothing to yours, but our own beliefs mean the world (and more) to ourselves. Because belief in something that can’t be objectively proved must be subjective, that’s where their meaning lies, subjectively. How could your beliefs on such things possibly affect me, or mine you? So, in one sense, yes, I’m saying beliefs mean nothing, but I’m also saying they mean everything. If your subjective belief or non-belief in God must matter to you objectively, then you need to get your stuff straight my friend. Many horrible mistakes have been made in the past because people confused the subjective with the objective and non of them were pretty.

I must reiterate, this is not a word game. It is, in fact, quite serious and utmostly sincere. How words are read holds all their meaning, it’s not a question of “A is A” and “B is B”. It is, however, entirely a question of how you view yourself…

22

Dude. Forget God for a moment. Tell me how I can have a “belief” about Jay Gatsby, Holden Caulfield, or that white whale in Moby-Dick. I don’t want to even know anything about the authors’ intents - tell me how I am to hold a belief of any kind about any fictional character in any work of fiction.

You show me how I can do that without being trivial, stupid, or insane, and I will go to church tomorrow.

23

I’m not asking you to go to church. Hell, I would never ask anyone to go to church, really. The idea of an organized… well, that’s for a differant topic… heh… ahem Anyway, I’m not asking you by any means to believe in God, (or Batman or Stephen Daedalus or whatever) either. Why would I want to do that? You’ve got your own perfectly reasonable conception about the universe and all that stuff. I’m not asking you to think that anyone else’s beliefs about God (or Fred Flintstone, etc. etc.) are reasonable at all either.

All I’m trying to say is that as a real and true atheist, by saying “there is no God,” you have a belief, just as a guy who, I don’t know, thinks Elvis is the holy lord and savior has a belief, and that his belief is just as valid as yours. I know that’s totally rediculous, an absolutely revolting statement. Anyone who’d think such a thing would have to be an idiot, obviously. I’m sure he could try to exhortate to you, preach the holy gospel of The King to you, catagorically give you every reason why he truely believes in the godhood of Elvis Aaron Presley.

And of course, you might give this lunatic a chuckle and pity him a bit before explaining to him calmly and slowly why Elvis can not possibly be God, that the concept of God itself is laughable, and why this poor guy has been wasting his time preaching such dumb shit.

Of course, seeing as this man is a true believer, he doesn’t give in. He looks at you like you’re five years old and chuckles at your wisdom. Vainly you two try back and forth to convince the other but it’s no good. Everything in this man’s life leading up to this moment has led him to believe that Elvis is God, while everything in your life leading up to this moment has led you to believe that there is no God.

The objective idea of the exsistance of God or nonexsistance of God can’t be communicated because his beliefs are not yours and yours are not his. The men discouraging each other for their contridictory beliefs are more like the other than they care to admit.

I find it funny sometimes. Alot of people don’t realize it, but the men most differant aren’t the ones at the opposite ends of ideas. The men most differant are the ones who stand in the center and look down at it all…

24

Again i’d like to point out post-theist or post-atheism which would be complete lack of belief of disbelief in god.
ALL atheists would be post-atheists if there wasn’t any religion in the world… but there is.

The fact that atheists are forced to have a “belief” which is a disbelief, is a consequence of other people beliving.

25

Good point. Thus, the fact that atheism is a belief really means nothing at all.

26

The only true state of non-belief is that of utter indifference; in this case, agnosticism. To not have a belief is to abstain from subscribing to either side, or to never even contemplate the question. Atheism is not a consequence of, or response to, theism. They are both simply opposite views to the same question - one answers with intelligence, the other by blind physical processes.

27

what do you mean by blind physical processes… ?

also… i think the fact that atheism wouldn’t exist without theism is of some importance in this argument.
Agnosticism is mere indifference to the question; but it fails to explain anything.

There’s a huge problem with words on this matter. Someone needs to clearify the words we use when we debate this before we continue… i myself don’t have the time right now.

28

Question - I would like to be able to tell you that yours was a nice try, but it wasn’t. This is an “I’m cooler than you” thread.

Paff.

29

Faust you still haven’t proven how you’re an athiest rather than, as I stated, an Agnostic.

Athiesm is a statement, you’re claiming not to state anything – which is what Agnosticism does.

30

By blind physical processes I mean the opposite to an intelligent entity with puropse: processes which simply occur with no guidance, and are not controlled, or were created, by intelligence…When mankind began to question the origin of himself and the universe, these two separate strands emerged.
Yet it is not necessary that the answer “intelligence is needed” must come before one can speak of (believe) that the universe is governed by nature alone.

31

Gobbo - I do not mean to prove that I am an atheist. What the fuck do I care if you think I’m an atheist?

If you have a definition of atheism that is different from mine, any notion of proof is a stupidity.

An agnostic claims that we have no basis for knowledge of God. It has nothing to do with belief, if belief is treated seperately from knowledge. Learn your terms, brother. The agnostic says, “I cannot know”.

I am not saying that we cannot know, but that there is nothing to know. This is not complicated. There is no referent to any potential belief, here - that is what I am saying. You claim that we can have a belief with absolutley no referent. That’s hogwash. People who “believe in God” are mistaken from the outset. They are taking fiction as truth - they are playing make-believe.

This is spiral reasoning you are espousing - you can define any statement as being based on belief - but then you are stuck with it. You can only tell me, then, what you believe about my position, and nothing about the position itself.

32

Heh, alright… but this is a discussion board.

I’ll have to dwell on that one.

An athiest claims we have no basis for knowledge of God. That’s what belief is, a type of claim without the tangible evidence to support it. Then, as you said, an agnostic says ‘I cannot know (either way)’. A belief that the initial premise can’t be reached.

Well then I’d say we’re along the shores of Nihilism.

So…you can somehow ‘know’, that there is nothing to know, but I can’t contend a belief in not knowing? That doesn’t seem fair.

Despite what shape you perceive it to be, you’re correct. I’m contending belief to be a fundamental psychological principal, the reason why Nihilism -always- fails in any pragmatic sense.

How is it I could do otherwise…?

33

if you look at atheism/theism in another way… you can think of atheism not being a belief…

lets just say atheism is not the belief that god doesn’t exist.
lets say its “lack of theism”, “lack of belief in god”.

I still think this is a language problem and we should look more carefully into that matter.

You could even say its “lack of belief”.

34

Gobbo -

Dude, wikipedia it. That’s the definition of agnostic.

I am the furthest thing from a nihilist that I can think of. I mean that there is nothing to know about God.

This is a ruse. Any statement I, or anyone else makes, can be put in terms of “things I know.” This is a rhetorical device, and unworthy, in my view. Yes - this I “know”.

Nietzsche made the case that christianity is an example of nihilism. I accept his argument.

By accepting that there is a difference between knowledge and belief. Any difference.

35

They may not have invented the rocks and trees, but you don’t know that they didn’t simply point to a God instead of making one up. Personally I believe they did make one up… and I feel like that’s my point, I believe that fact.

Sorry if I’m being difficult but I fail to see how you can simply exist within the world without beliefs? If we all lived within the story of Moby Dick we would have to take what Melville tells us - the world, and form some sort of belief. Even if that -belief- is that we cannot ever talk to Melville, or that he doesn’t exist. The characters in the story cannot perceive they are fiction even if, like you, you suspect it to be true – you have no way of ‘knowing’ this, you believe in it.

36

Carpathian - it is a language problem only if we are using language for purely rhetorical purposes. Atheism is a belief about religious people - they invented God. Atheism is not a belief about any metaphysical entity. There is no such thing as a metaphysical entity.

Mistaking fiction as fact is not very different than mistaking a poem for a recipe. It is a blunder - it makes no epistemic statement. Not even an incorrect epistemic statement. It is an error.

To say otherwise is to admit that error is not possible within any given paradigm. That every paradigm is automatically it’s own “reality”. We call this schizophrenia, generally. .

37

Gobbo -

Firstly, to be clear, I deleted the post that this quote came from due to technical problems that I did not know how to correct, but I believe that my restatement is essentially in line with this. I stand by it, of course.

Gobbo - will you look at what you have written? The characters cannot perceive anything. I suspect it to be true that they are fictional? I can’t take this seriously, Gobbo. Sorry.

38

Gobbo - do me a favor. Go over to the Essays board and read my piece on The Ferrymen. It’s short. Then tell me if I am writing about historical research that I have done, or if I have just made it all up. PM me if you want.

39

I think we’re completely missing each other here as what you’re saying makes absolutely no sense to me.

This happens when I’m sober…

40

To say that fictional characters can’t perceive that they are fictional is just gibberish. They are fictional characters. They can’t think, perceive, make love - they’re fictional. Words on a page. Make-believe. You are treating them like they are agents, however flawed. It is one big figure of speech. That white whale never existed. The book does. The characters are perfect - complete. They’re fictional. Nothing is perfect except fiction. That’s just a truism. Mathematics is a fiction - there is no phenominal referent. Does no one get this?

Does anyone around here have any conception of fiction? Am I all alone, here, the only one?