Originally Posted by therandomone
I guess I should have fleshed that out more. I said respect, because theism doesn't really have any place in a debate since by its very nature belief has no place with logic.
|
Would like to nuance that. Theists make assumptions they take for fact, assumptions which we disagree with. Their factual basis is, certainly in our eyes, therefore flawed. But that doesn't mean the remainder of their argument is per definition illogical.
Within the context of what they assumed, they can make a - in their eyes - very logical argument. A lot of them do value reason.
The problem is that their assumptions tend to be rather flawed and often farfetched, which makes their use of facts irrational and thus to us skeptics, highly illogical. The reasoning can be the same, but the starting point leads to highly varying conclusions (deduction vs induction). Particularly often due to the use of circle argumentation.
|
For atheism, I go back to what I have said previously. Create a logical defense/support for atheism. Now remove the naturalistic, physicalistic,and inductive premises and principles. Is it still a logical defense? No.
|
That's a circle argument. You start by having a defense based on naturalism, physicalism and inductive premises and principles, then remove them and say "do you still have one"? But that foregoes the fact that someone can still be an atheist without having that by simply not believing in a god.
You forget that atheism
doesn't need a defense, it simply requires
lack of faith, meaning all it requires is
the inability of someone else to convince them of the existence of a god.
This can be done by not accepting someone else's claims because he or she doesn't LIKE the claims or doesn't care to think about it. Or, because you're unable to receive and process any such claims because you're still incapable of language. It is logical that under such circumstances, such a person would not become a theist!
Atheism doesn't have anything to do with a positive affirmation. It's simply inacceptance of theist claims about a divine entity. That's all. Whether it's logically defended or not. They're just as much 'real' atheists as any other.
Now, for rational atheists, you have a point that they base their argumentation on logic first and foremost. However, they also base their conclusion in lacking trust and lacking faith in the capacity of others to come to a proper conclusion and then there's the people that want to conclude for themselves what they choose to believe or not. All you need for atheism in terms of defense, is the non-affirmation of theist claims.
|
What I'm trying to say that by defending atheism logically, whether you would like to or not, you make yourself unable to believe in other supernatural beliefs. You can still claim to believe in them, but in doing so you become inconsistent in your defense for atheism.
|
I believe we've all said that from the start you would not be a consistent
skeptic, but also that you don't need to be to be a consistent atheist. You'd be an inconsistent atheist if you disbelief in one god for reason A, but do belief in another where reason A goes out the window. Which would also make you a theist.
Again, we point to those atheists who belief in extra-terrestrial beings visiting the earth. They are very consistent in not believing in any gods. They're just not consistent in their skepticism of claims. And yes, that makes them hypocritical (as skeptics).
|
So sure, it isn't hard coded into the explicit definition but implicitly by the vary nature of defending atheism you must reject other claims as well to remain consistent and not hypocritical.
|
Again, the implication is about a consistent application of
skepticism, which is nice if you want to be a consistent skeptic, but unnecessary if you want to be a consistent atheist. It's a one directional thing. A skeptic needs to be consistent on theism as well and therefore generally finds him or herself and atheist, whereas an atheist does not need to be a skeptic. This is your main point of confusion. You want the two groups to be the same, but despite of the significant overlap, they're not.
Neither theists or atheists need to be consistent regarding other claims to be classified as either consistent theist or consistent atheist, as long as they're consistent in their conclusions about the (non-)existence of divinity.
The explicit definition is important to define an atheist, otherwise you narrow down the group too much. Hence why people created a lot of nuances to classify people of different opinion, mindset and consistency within the atheist and theist groups.
Applying and accepting your implicit definition would simplify the concept of atheism too much to a new meaning. Which is what we've been saying all along as well: you've tried to redefine atheism to your own preference of rational atheists.
We don't think that's reasonable.
|
Edit: And for the record, it was you who cast the first (insulting/sarcastic) stone. I just had fun with it.
Page 69:apple pie meetings ring any bells?
|
|
Originally Posted by Figment on Page 69
It's really hard for people to understand it's just one single item rather than a whole big thing with specific believes, rites and apple pie meetings, isn't it?
|
That's an insult to you?
Linear Mode
