Atheists: Apostate vs Non-Apostate

[Terxpahseyton]

Some animals absolutely are emphatic. I believe all or at least many mammals are. Empathy is from what I have gathered a fairly basic "tool" of group coordination. Of having animals work together more efficiently.
However, empathy does not imply self-reflection. It by itself really only means to be able to feel what others feel in a given situation, to emotionally put yourself in their shoes. Saying, even if you are able to feel bad for someone else, you need still self-reflection to fathom potential moral implications. Without that, it in the end is nothing but another kind of feeling. Like hunger, or sexual appetite.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

Some animals absolutely are emphatic. I believe all or at least many mammals are. Empathy is from what I have gathered a fairly basic "tool" of group coordination. Of having animals work together more efficiently.
However, empathy does not imply self-reflection. It by itself really only means to be able to feel what others feel in a given situation, to emotionally put yourself in their shoes. Saying, even if you are able to feel bad for someone else, you need still self-reflection to fathom potential moral implications. Without that, it in the end is nothing but another kind of feeling. Like hunger, or sexual appetite.

whow, well done! what is the prerequisite for self-reflection then?

 

[Traitorfish]

As I already stated quite clearly numerous times, I am completely familiar with this extremely black and white pigeonholing system and I prefer my far more nuanced one. YMMV.

Furthermore, it is quite clear which of these pigeonholes I would actually be in given that Ziggy actually mentioned it long ago, and it certainly isn't the one that TF put me into.

There's a difference between nuance and muddying the water. I know you love love love this sub-Stewart so-above-your-petty-contentions shtick (which is weird, given your similar affection for petty contentions), but in this case you're just wilfully misusing simple terms to no constructive end.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Then perhaps you can find a single reference in the over 20,000 posts that I have made in this forum which even insinuates that I believe there is a god. That is, beyond this silly notion that if I am not an avowed atheist instead of a strong agnostic I must be a theist.

 

[Traitorfish]

It's really very straightforward. If you believe in god, you possess a belief in god. A belief in god is called "theism". Thus, you are a theist. If you do not believe in god, you do not possess a belief in god. You are without theism; you are a-theist. You claimed not to be an atheist, so we can only reasonably conclude that you are a theist.

Now, that doesn't capture many of the nuances of perspective that you might have. It doesn't indicate whether the theist believes in a personal deity or an all-encompassing spirit. It does not tell you whether the atheist thinks that justified knowledge of god is possible in the first place. But in neither case is it inaccurate, it is merely insufficient to explain ones full perspective.

Of course, it is possible that there is an alternative to your being a theist, and that would be you not actually knowing what the word "atheist" means, or arbitrarily redefining the word to make some rhetorical point. Would that, you think, be closer to the mark?

 

[timtofly]

It's really very straightforward. If you believe in god, you possess a belief in god. A belief in god is called "theism". Thus, you are a theist. If you do not believe in god, you do not possess a belief in god. You are without theism; you are a-theist. You claimed not to be an atheist, so we can only reasonably conclude that you are a theist.

Now, that doesn't capture many of the nuances of perspective that you might have. It doesn't indicate whether the theist believes in a personal deity or an all-encompassing spirit. It does not tell you whether the atheist thinks that justified knowledge of god is possible in the first place. But in neither case is it inaccurate, it is merely insufficient to explain ones full perspective.

Of course, it is possible that there is an alternative to your being a theist, and that would be you not actually knowing what the word "atheist" means, or arbitrarily redefining the word to make some rhetorical point. Would that, you think, be closer to the mark?

What if one has no belief? It seems that Form has decided not to believe either way. He does not believe that there is no God. He accepts that no one can know and no one should be forced (pigeon-holed) into believing what they do not know. It seems to me that most here (there are some very noticeable exceptions) are still looking at it from the perspective that there "may" be a God to believe or not believe in.

I may be wrong but belief should not be tied to what others hold in a group perspective. That is the pigeon - holing concept that brings every one back to the same focal point. IMO the focal point is NOT that there is or is not a God. Forcing belief is the same as proving a negative.

The opposite would be a gnostic who knows but refuses to believe. What if belief is accepting something at face value? An agnostic could possibly not accept (believe) the lack of knowledge while an atheist does accept (believe) that there is no God.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

@Traitorfish
Thanks for articulating so precisely why this whole "Oh I am not an atheist but an agnostic because I don't think we can know that gods exist"-thing is without sense. More precise would probably be to say something like "Oh I am an atheist but it carries an offensive undertone towards my fellow theists so I'll just drop that and instead emphasize how I can not rule out that theists are wrong" - which highlights why this stance intellectually is worthless. Because that we can not know if God exists is as trivial as it gets - and as it happens the intellectual foundation of atheism.
So what does this leave? I would say a simple act of sucking up to others so to seem more likable.

what is the prerequisite for self-reflection then?

I am not entirely sure. Self-awareness and some degree of rational thought seem to lend themselves,

What if one has no belief? It seems that Form has decided not to believe either way.

Then I wonder why he didn't just wright "Don't know". But I am inclined to agree that such a stance doesn't fit the pattern, I however don't share your apparent view that this somehow negatively reflected on the pattern. Because do we really need a special category for "Don't know"? It is about categorizing stances after all, not the lack of such a stance. When we categorize types of meat, we aren't calling ourselves fools for forgetting to have a word for types of meat which aren't meat.

 

[Formaldehyde]

@Traitorfish
Thanks for articulating so precisely why this whole "Oh I am not an atheist but an agnostic because I don't think we can know that gods exist"-thing is without sense. More precise would probably be to say something like "Oh I am an atheist but it carries an offensive undertone towards my fellow theists so I'll just drop that and instead emphasize how I can not rule out that theists are wrong" - which highlights why this stance intellectually is worthless. Because that we can not know if God exists is as trivial as it gets - and as it happens the intellectual foundation of atheism.
So what does this leave? I would say a simple act of sucking up to others so to seem more likable.

Thanks for again showing that those who think all agnostics are "fence-sitters" don't really have a clue at all what many, if not most, agnostics even think.

http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/commitment.htm

One of the problems with this general conception of agnosticism as lack of “commitment” is that is relies upon a mistaken understanding of belief. Indeed, it arguably relies upon a very Christian understanding of belief because it seems to assume that being either a theist or an atheist requires a person to “commit” to some proposition through an act of will which carries ethical implications. This makes atheism and theism acts of will for which you can be held accountable — thus the supposedly superior morality of this non-committal agnosticism.

Belief is not, however simply a matter of commitment. A person can certainly commit to a cause, an ideal, or an agenda, but beliefs are a bit different. In order to believe something, you don’t have to make any sort of commitment. If you believe a proposition, all this says is that your mind accepts that proposition as true. If you do not currently accept that proposition as true, then it necessarily follows that you do not believe it. This doesn’t mean that you accept that the proposition is false, either — that’s a different question.

The point is, however, that while an agnostic might justifiably refuse to commit to any theistic or atheistic agendas, that isn’t the same as a refusal to “commit” to atheism or theism. This means, then, that agnosticism cannot be reasonably regarded as an alternative to atheism or theism in this manner. Agnosticism is a lack of knowledge, not a lack of commitment — agnostics still either have a belief in the existence of at least one god or they lack any positive belief in the existence of any gods. The first would make them an agnostic theist while the latter would make them an agnostic atheist.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Funny, because I don't think that. You may go back and note how I didn't address agnostics in general, but agnostics using a quit specific line of argument to defend their agnosticism as opposed to atheism.
And how your link does anything to substantiate your point - as it is precisely what Traitorfish argued and what I applauded him for - really just leaves me to wonder what the heck is going on in your head.

 

[Formaldehyde]

But the point is that there are very few of these "fence sitters" from what I've seen. That it is intended to be a smear of all agnostics. That Traitorfish still clearly has no clue what strong agnosticism even means or what my opinions even are by still insisting I must be a theist, and how it is obviously quite different from these supposed "fence sitters" that you ostensibly despise.

Both Ziggy and I made that perfectly clear on page one of this thread:

yeah, I know I'm anal about that. But it somehow grates me that agnosticism is seen as a sort of a middle ground between theism and atheism. Being an agnostic myself and an atheist, I always feel it indirectly concerns me.

That also bothers me as well. While there are certainly at least some "fence sitters", I don't think it is true with most agnostics. It is mostly just an attempt to ridicule and troll those who are.

And here you both are continuing the same nonsense which seems to arise with nearly any thread where agnosticism is even mentioned. Again, agnosticism is a catch-all term which includes many disparate views.

 

[_random_]

Are you talking about Religious Atheists or Irreligious Atheists because I subscribe to Christian Atheism.

Now that's interesting. What do you mean by "Christian Atheism?" Do you go to church and what not or just generally try to live your life in accord with Jesus' teachings?

 

[timtofly]

@Traitorfish
Thanks for articulating so precisely why this whole "Oh I am not an atheist but an agnostic because I don't think we can know that gods exist"-thing is without sense. More precise would probably be to say something like "Oh I am an atheist but it carries an offensive undertone towards my fellow theists so I'll just drop that and instead emphasize how I can not rule out that theists are wrong" - which highlights why this stance intellectually is worthless. Because that we can not know if God exists is as trivial as it gets - and as it happens the intellectual foundation of atheism.
So what does this leave? I would say a simple act of sucking up to others so to seem more likable.

I am not entirely sure. Self-awareness and some degree of rational thought seem to lend themselves,

Then I wonder why he didn't just wright "Don't know". But I am inclined to agree that such a stance doesn't fit the pattern, I however don't share your apparent view that this somehow negatively reflected on the pattern. Because do we really need a special category for "Don't know"? It is about categorizing stances after all, not the lack of such a stance. When we categorize types of meat, we aren't calling ourselves fools for forgetting to have a word for types of meat which aren't meat.

He is a strong agnostic, which I believe (accept) would be: don't know and really don't care to be pigeoned holed in any belief (forced to accept anything either way) system.

Yes we need FOUR aspects because the reality of God is the difference between currency and credit. If we could spend invisible currency and not call it credit? Probably not a very good analogy since most put their faith in credit and not currency, but therein lies the whole problem? When it comes to negatives it is hard to avoid. Even using the word problem implies negatives. I am stuck with the use of negatives because that has been in human psyche for the whole of christianity. Not sure how to get around it one way or the other. Having just two forms makes it black and white. Having four makes it less so. I am not the one though, who is calling it black and white. I am capable of seeing it in a broader light. If humans can only think in binary though would that not imply something more?

Are we forced to accept one way or the other? Like I said belief or acceptance seems to be the issue; not, knowing or not knowing. However one cannot just forget the ability to know and not know.

Connecting that to the OP, an apostate would only be one who knows, but does not accept. An athiest that does not know, cannot be an apostate. IMO there is a difference in being educated (in) and knowing something. YMMV.

 

[MobBoss]

Then perhaps you can find a single reference in the over 20,000 posts that I have made in this forum which even insinuates that I believe there is a god. That is, beyond this silly notion that if I am not an avowed atheist instead of a strong agnostic I must be a theist.

Well, what are you then?

 

[timtofly]

Well, what are you then?

People do not have to accept a belief system do they? One either knows or does not know, but they cannot be forced to accept anything unless they make that choice. They are not sitting on the fence either. There is no fence when one does not know that a fence exist. One can accept there is no God (that is their belief system), or one can just say they do not know. Not for sure though that one without knowledge can strongly state they do not know, however we do have some here that do so quite loudly. Seems we can have people that state they know he exist just as easily as those who know he does not. By definition an agnostic is not just one who does not know, but can never know, or so they say.

Spoiler :

Go ahead and make fun of "knowledge" that cannot be proved, and at the same time firmly state you do not know without accepting it as a belief system. Reality is not real any ways.

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

There is a way of thinking: Is it impossible? That means it can be done.
Becouse impossibility is only a sum of greater unrealised possibles. It veils an advanced stage and a yet unaccomplished journey.
Usally we reject idea of God becouse from some angles of our thinking it seems plain impossible that under the circumstances and our daily practical experience as we understand them there could be such a thing. But yet the very idea of this impossibility has in it the clues for it being true and real in some form otherwise there would be no such thought at all.

 

[Traitorfish]

What if one has no belief? It seems that Form has decided not to believe either way. He does not believe that there is no God. He accepts that no one can know and no one should be forced (pigeon-holed) into believing what they do not know.

Atheism does not mean a belief in the non-existence of god, it means a lack of belief in the existence of god. "A-theism", without theism.

Thanks for again showing that those who think all agnostics are "fence-sitters" don't really have a clue at all what many, if not most, agnostics even think.

http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/commitment.htm

Have you actually read anything I've written in this thread?

There is a way of thinking: Is it impossible? That means it can be done.
Becouse impossibility is only a sum of greater unrealised possibles. It veils an advanced stage and a yet unaccomplished journey.
Usally we reject idea of God becouse from some angles of our thinking it seems plain impossible that under the circumstances and our daily practical experience as we understand them there could be such a thing. But yet the very idea of this impossibility has in it the clues for it being true and real in some form otherwise there would be no such thought at all.

what.

 

[Masada]

Have you actually read anything I've written in this thread?

"I don't know if there is a God", is a rather different statement from "there is a God, but I don't believe in him".

 

[Mechanicalsalvation]

what.

What?

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Link to video.

 

[Leoreth]

what.

Sounds like a poorly thought out ontological argument to me.