I was raised Catholic and have had a real hard time understanding where the hubby is coming from. The concept of no belief in God is so alien to me, that even after years of recognizing God as an unprovable on an intellectual level (I am an agnostic in the Huxley sense) , I still consider myself an emotional Theist - although its become so softened that most people wouldn’t recognize what I believe in as a God at all. Its one of the reasons I started hanging out here, is that other people could sometimes explain what he couldn’t.
Yes, in a way. It stays atheism, but atheism is then just a part of a larger picture. To say for instance that Camus was an atheist is correct but hardly does justice to his somewhat broader scope of at the time novel moral and ethical framework, and his pretty grim nihilism. Therefore it is better to call him an existentialist, for purposes of classification. Atheism in its broadest sense as pointed out earlier is after all simply to not believe in any supernatural divinity.
Hence Dangerosa’s hubby and I are both atheists, while we differ as I think that maybe, I emotionally grasp the concept of God. I would therefore be more of a hardline atheist having actively unchosen God in my life. I also harbor certain moral and ethical feelings that put me close to existentialist. But hey, as would say the believer; all this is quite literally just degrees in hell.
BTW lest I spread some misconception: existentialism must not entail atheism. Kirkegaard being a foreruunner of the philosophy and a priest and what not would revolve in his grave if this was thought.
I think that for many atheists, it isn’t the religion per se to which they object, it is the desire for power that is sometimes expressed by religious people. Let’s be honest here, how often do you hear arguments between atheists and people of relatively passive religions like Buddhism, for example? It’s mostly the evangelical varieties that create controversy. In my day-to-day interaction with friends and family, the subject of religion rarely comes up. If it does, it generally takes the form of a sincere interest in each other’s beliefs. The problem occurs when we hear radicals who want their personal religion to control society. I object to people who proclaim “If everyone believed in God, we wouldn’t have [such-and-such] problem.” I object to those who insist that their religion should become a part of schools and government. I object to the President invoking God in military actions. Yes, we could “walk away” from such aggression, but then we allow them to make a tacit assumption that they are unopposed, and free to continue their power grab. So it becomes necessary to educate others that their belief is not the only way to go - that it is indeed possible to be a good and productive member of society no matter what our religious belief (or lack thereof). We may not be able to convince them that their feeling of moral superiority is unfounded, but shouldn’t we at least try?
I don’t see this as being an active belief. I see it as a reaction to the Jerry Falwells of the world who would completely undermine our freedom of religion if they could. If these people would just shut the f*** up, I wouldn’t give it a second thought. You can call that whatever you want - it’s just semantics.
How could I possibly have misunderstood this! :eek:
The other responses show some of the problems with your argument, but there is a very fundamental problem with equating liking and believing. I cannot begin to understand how you think not liking something because it is constantly thrown at you is at all similar to disbelieving in something because it is constantly thrown at you. I also cannot understand how you can compare purple, something which you have evidence of, with god, something which you have no evidence of. I assumed you were comparing purple with the concept of god, because that is the only logical comparison to draw from your analogy. But then again, I was wrong to try to find any logic in an analogy that seems designed to confuse the issue by its very lack of logic.
It’s an analogy for goodness’ sake; it’s impossible to make an analogy that mirrors every aspect of a situation when that situation is unique.
The purpose of the thing was not anything about God really, it was to try to demonstrate that one can (possibly) be forced to form a more complex opinion on [any issue] if that issue is at the forefront of one’s attention.
Well, it looks like enough determination can render even the simple expedient of argument by analogy futile.
If you pick and scratch long enough, you can crumble any analogy with that kind of approach. Wiser heads instead focus on the analogy as an aid in illustrating a concept or statement that is unclear until it is placed in relation to something more familiar or less abstruse; therefore the [one statement] was clarified by using [another, more familiar statement] and observing their similarities, without necessarily saying the two are similar to any extent beyond the intent stated. In terms of logic, which you allude to with familiarity, think of it this way: arguing from similarity in certain known/understood respects to similarity in other respects.
Strictly speaking analogies are not conclusive arguments because ultimately every analogy must be flawed in some way (if two things were exactly equal there would probably be no need for an analogy). But analogies do come in very useful when trying to wrap our mind around what belief in God entails, as evidenced by the fact that many people have trouble to some degree understanding the differences between believing and not believing in something (the latter is not necessarily diametrically opposed to the former).
Next time you feel like stomping an analogy, ask yourself: “did the creator of this analogy really intend for me to take it to ridiculous lengths, or should I limit myself to considering the simple point he is trying to make?”
To support my case I call forward the following old thread. Tell me if you can spot the problem in the response to my post.
To which some wit replied:
I trust the silliness of such unnecessary extremism when replying to a modest and simple analogy is obvious. If someone’s example is not immediately clear, try treat it with some respect instead of scorn and sarcasm (unless it’s an obviously stupid analogy, which Mangetout’s was not).
Thanks Abe; a wise man once said ‘the value of metaphor is in what it parallels, not what it fails to parallel’ (I’ll leave you to guess which guru this was.
I understand your point, but you are misrepresenting my response to the analogy. It is not the analogy itself that I scorned, but the insistence that it meant something that is nonsensical at best. It was a simple and clear analogy, between purple and the concept of god. Looked at from that perspective, it makes sense, although it is not particularly relevant. However, Mangetout then stated that it was comparing liking purple and believing in god, which, while maybe not “obviously stupid”… oh, wait…
Funny, Mangetout and I managed to communicate just fine off the analogy. Worked for us.
Analogies are funny that way. Sometimes they make you say a-ha! Sometimes you just don’t understand how they map. Kind of like belief in God to certain atheists.
It looks like Mangetout does have a pretty good idea of the issue. I just doubt that it is an easy thing to force someone into believing something, rather than forcing someone to like something, and if it looks like you forced someone to believe something you probably only forced them to pretend to do so based on their likes and dislikes.
I understand the analogy, I just don’t think it works. I still don’t think you can equate liking with believing. BTW, I am not an atheist. I believe that there may very well be a god, and I accept all evidence when considering the issue. My major evidence as to what god is like is my own thoughts, and the thoughts of others, on what god should be like. If I am harsh toward someone’s evidence, it is only because I am accepting that evidence, while an athiest would simply discard it.
I don’t know what I was trying to say either. That analogy is still confusing me.
Actually I was saying that I take people’s thoughts and beliefs about god seriously when considering if god exists or not, and if so what kind of god, so I am more concerned with not accepting ideas that make no sense than someone who does not accept any evidence as valid, because they wouldn’t have to worry about accepting nonsensical evidence. If you accept evidence for the existence of god as valid, and believe god’s existence to be possible, I don’t think you are really an athiest. In that case, athiest would be a term that covers just about everyone.
With all the negatives you have strung together in this paragraph, it’s still difficult to discern your point, but I’m getting that you are of the opinion that all atheists reject all evidence regarding god/s OUT OF HAND. If this is indeed your point, I believe it to be patently false. There is a distinct difference between rejecting evidence out of hand, and rejecting unconvincing evidence that has been duly considered.
Not true. An atheist is simply one who does not believe in God. Among atheists, there could be (1) those who refuse to consider any evidence of god/s (as you suggest), but also (2) those who thought about the evidence, and found it lacking (just as you probably did at some point in your life regarding Santa Claus). I find the latter position to be quite tenable. In fact, there are many theists who readily admit that the evidence alone is insufficient, and that faith is required. Conversely, among theists, there could be (1) those who have examined the evidence and found it convincing, and (2) those who find faith alone to be sufficient, and require no evidence. I wouldn’t define either group of theists as “atheist”. So, no - the term atheist doesn’t cover everyone. (It’d be nice if it did, though)
blowero, does it matter which god someone does not believe in? If I do not believe in several gods, am I atheist, superatheist, part atheist/part agnostic, or what?
I was not attempting to equate liking with believing.
I was trying (and evidently failing) to illustrate the point that I made earler that a person might be moved (I shall not use ‘forced’ anymore, it was never the right word) to change their position on an issue in response to external stimulus (and in the case of atheism, change from ‘I don’t believe in God’ to ‘I believe that there is no God’).
There doesn’t have to be much qualitative equivalence between compared objects in an analogy; as Abe pointed out - if the two compared objects were exactly the same, an analogy would not be required.
If I say ‘my Love is like a red red rose’, you could examine that statement as follows: does it mean that I keep my wife in the garden? no; neither do I regularly apply manure to her feet; she isn’t red, doesn’t have thorns, isn’t a plant, doesn’t climb a trellis, is not pestered by aphids, and cannot be purchased for £5.95 at a garden centre; in fact there’s arguably little qualitative similarity at all, except in that it’s possible for me to admire her.
So, to recap; I think it’s possible that continued attention from theists might cause a situation whereby an atheist would spend more time and attention examining the issue at hand and as a result, shift their position from one of absence of belief, to one of belief of absence.
Now just say ‘no that’s not possible’ and we’re done.
It’s nice to see that you are getting what you wanted out of my post, even if it wasn’t there. I said that if you accept evidence as valid, meaning that it does suggest that god exists, then you are not an athiest. I never said anything about rejecting something “out of hand.” You seem to think that anything less than 100% belief in a particular god is athiesm. If so, even a theist who is currently doubting their beliefs would suddenly become an athiest.
Is this honestly your definition of athiesm? If you find the evidence “lacking” for a particular god, wouldn’t that mean you think there is more evidence for that god than other gods? I find the evidence lacking, but I still think it lends some probability to the existence of a god. By your definition I am an athiest, as is anyone who is not absolutely sure of god. Athiesm means that you do not believe the evidence increases the probability of god at all.
No, atheism to me means that the amount of evidence (if it exists at al) is so miniscule that it isn’t even worth discussing. I don’t believe in the Loch Ness Monster though photographs exist, and I don’t believe in Bigfoot though both movies and plaster of paris footprints exist. I’m not dismissing the evidence-I’m begging to see it so that this discussion can go forward.
