donathos said:
But your argument seems predicated on this idea that I'm defending a belief that... I don't think I've ever advocated. This seems to all come down to your definition of "atheism"; you think that, because I describe myself as "atheist" and not "agnostic," that must mean that I am claiming that god does not and can not exist. But I'm not claiming any such thing; only that I have no belief in any god or gods.
Well, I think that it is primarily a difference in terminology. However I am quite certain that I am an atheist. I think that it's at least possible that "atheism" is a bit broader than you're allowing for...
An entymology of "theist" (from etymonline.com): Theist: 1662, from Gk. theos "god" (see Thea) + -ist. The original senses was that later reserved to deist: "one who believes in a transcendant god but denies revelation." Later in 18c. theist was contrasted with deist, as allowing the possibility of revelation. Theism "belief in a deity" is recorded from 1678; meaning "belief in one god" (as opposed to polytheism) is recorded from 1711. Theistic is attested from 1780. Description of the prefixes a- and anti- (from Wikipedia):
*** Atheism is not necessarily the kind of "anti-theism" you take it to be. Instead, it is more like "without-theism." While there are some people, and some sources, who take the position that you seem to argue against--a claim that no god can possibly exist--it isn't the position that I claim or, to the best of my knowledge, have ever claimed. Such a claim is also not synonymous with "atheism," even though some atheists do make it. |
@First point,
I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that I was making this point at you specifically.... I made a point that wasn't actually addressed to anyone specifically which you responded to. I didn't seek out the discussion with you to make an accusation so I'm not sure why you feel I must have been referring about your position specifically rather than just simply speaking generally. When I first made the point I was honestly just putting the point out there as an extension of my post prior to having made the initial point.
@Second Point,
Actually it is the idea that atheism is broader than that that I am in fact objecting to. The multiple facets of atheism is part of the intellectual dishonesty present in the overall debate (to be clear I'm not objecting to the distinctions themselves). Consider if theists as a whole said "well we're going to add a new category of theism known as weak theism similar to weak atheism, as a result you can no longer describe theism as being a position of faith because this position of theism accepts that we might be wrong and doesn't take the position very strongly at all." Or perhaps their weak theism states "we see theism as the default position because it is really an absence of belief in abiogenesis, and since it is an absence of belief it is not really a faith based belief!".
Regardless of this silly argument theism would still be a position of faith, despite trying to co-opt new ideas into the meaning of the term to shed a label (and no atheist would think otherwise). This is essentially what atheism has done as counter-punch to an argument that made them feel uncomfortable and unsure (ie that they rely on faith for their beliefs). This is why the link you gave has a section on this very topic.
But this is actually pretty moot since I can make the point with equal (and perhaps greater) effectiveness without referring to atheism but instead specifically to beliefs.
@Third point,
The very bottom line is that there is a logical argument I'm making, and it will take an equally logical argument to dismantle it. Battling over definitions isn't very instructive honestly for either of our points and it leads to more and more irrelevant and pointless discussion (been there, done that). The points I lay out in posts above explained both why disbelief is more than an absence of belief and why this isn't just a nitpick.
Just to run over it again: Belief comes from one of three places - Evidence, Logic, or faith. When there is no evidential or logical arguments that reach the conclusion that a belief is correct the position is unavoidably one of faith. The issue that this view of belief and faith would result in a million fantasy creatures that would then also be believed to be fiction "merely" on faith is technically correct but doesn't actually rebut the argument, rather it simply objects to a consistent result. Your response to this point has consistently been that you don't like the result...not that you have a true logical objection to it (or perhaps I missed it).
The principles of logic simply do not care if a casual use of a word sounds "off" when used to describe its results. The entire point of logic is to contradict this exact type of casual misconception. Where the preconception of senses and sensibilities make it hard for people to accept something (see the history of philosophy in general).
This leaves your main logical contention that disbelief is merely the absence of belief, but this to is logically false. An absence of belief is indifference..you have an opinion on the subject..you have a position that you believe to be true. A belief in a lack of something is not a lack of belief...you simply believe that there is an absence of some thing...you do not have an absence of belief. Your belief as it pertains to the existence of god, is that he does not exist. This is not a non-belief...a null position is a non-belief...you have a position and therefor a belief. I cannot see any reasoning by which this is avoidable, to have a position is to have a belief.
PS - Sorry for the delay in reply, I've been spending my free time on GH: Metallica the last few days =P I think it might actually be the best GH game evah!~
 |
| To Each Man, Responsibility |
