|
Post by captainzman on Apr 1, 2011 3:03:09 GMT
I am like an atheist in regards to not believing in Thor or Zeus, yes, but I’m still not an atheist. Matko is right- theism and atheism are mutually exclusive categories. For example, I may be like every other bachelor in regards to every woman in the world except my wife, but at the end of the day I’m still married.
Well, I’m a Christian in regards to Ahura Mazda. I agree with the Zoroastrian insofar as his beliefs about God line up with mine, and I disagree when they don’t. The same goes for Muslims, Jews, etc.
My problem with the analogy is that I don’t think all forms of non-belief are equal, and I suspect that is what confuses other people as well. Some are more plausible than others (although I have a feeling you disagree). The arguments for believing in God and for believing in Thor are completely different. When a Christian asks you why you don’t believe in God, he has an entirely different set of arguments in mind than when a pagan asked you why you don’t believe in Thor.
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on Apr 1, 2011 6:43:24 GMT
I think this is the key, Tim. Many do go on to say this, as if it follows logically. I think the way you have set this out clarifies that there are two arguments often put together as one. Can you link to an example of those who go on to say this? I can't say I've seen it. When I see this observation made I see it used as I set it out above. In that case it seems you're less well read here than elsewhere, Tim? This is based on a well known quote from Stephen F. Roberts from back in the 90's: "I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." This is IOW very much an "argument" saying "You don't believe in all those other gods and so you should understand why I don't believe in your God - and hence you shouldn't believe in your God, if you were consistent".
|
|
|
Post by noons on Apr 1, 2011 11:04:17 GMT
I have another response, but I need to get to work right now. So I'll leave it with this: We're all procrastinators when it comes to the tasks we're not doing right now, some of us just go one task further.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2011 11:09:53 GMT
We are all socialists about most of the economic systems that societies have ever lived in. Some of us just go one economic system further.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Apr 1, 2011 12:39:05 GMT
I think this is the key, Tim. Many do go on to say this, as if it follows logically. I think the way you have set this out clarifies that there are two arguments often put together as one. Can you link to an example of those who go on to say this? I can't say I've seen it. When I see this observation made I see it used as I set it out above. Well the most obvious one which I see all the time is the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and the claim that if I don't believe in the FSM, then why believe in the God of Jesus? Zeus is also a favourite, sometimes Thor - not sure why these gods and not others, but that seems to be the case. The inference is that there is a similar amount of evidence for each, namely none. Whereas I understood your statement to be recognising that there might be different amounts of evidence, and thus rejection of one god doesn't necessarily imply rejection of others is logical.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Apr 3, 2011 23:43:16 GMT
I am like an atheist in regards to not believing in Thor or Zeus, yes. Which is precisely the point of the comparison that this slogan is making. It’s an analogy – “My lack of belief in your god is the same as your lack of belief in other gods”. The point of similarity is in the lack of belief. It doesn’t mean you don’t believe in Thor for the same reasons I don’t believe in Yahweh (how could it – they are two very different types of belief). It simply means you lack a belief in Thor just as I lack a belief in Yahweh. The analogy lies in the lacking of a belief. You may well be married to Jane, but you are as unmarried to Anne as a man who is not married at all. Analogy, the analogy lies in the lack of belief. That doesn’t mean the reasons or basis or origin of that lack of belief is therefore the same in all cases. See above – it’s an analogy, not a direct one-to-one correlation in all respects. The analogous element is purely and simply the lacking of belief, nothing more. Though it strikes me as interesting that the gods who those here seem to consider more “plausible” just happen to be the ones who correspond most closely to the one propounded by the religious tradition into which they were born. Pure luck or something else?
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Apr 3, 2011 23:47:56 GMT
Can you link to an example of those who go on to say this? I can't say I've seen it. When I see this observation made I see it used as I set it out above. In that case it seems you're less well read here than elsewhere, Tim? That’s always entirely possible. However … Sorry, but I can’t see how this is an argument at all. Note the use of the words “understand” in the quote – he’s making the point that if you can’t understand his lack of belief in your God then all you need do is look to your own, analogous lack of belief in other people’s gods and and you will understand. He’s using the analogy in precisely the way I explained that I use it in my first post in this thread, so that theists can understand unbelief better. Edit: *Waves to the Petty Karma Smiters* Your faith must be weak indeed if you are so threatened by someone simply calmly and civily stating an opinion that opposes yours. Truly pathetic.
|
|
|
Post by noons on Apr 4, 2011 4:17:54 GMT
Yeah, should've gotten that back up before you noticed But either way, I have my suspicions, but I don't like to point fingers. You know who you are, though.
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Apr 4, 2011 6:29:54 GMT
See above – it’s an analogy, not a direct one-to-one correlation in all respects. The analogous element is purely and simply the lacking of belief, nothing more. Though it strikes me as interesting that the gods who those here seem to consider more “plausible” just happen to be the ones who correspond most closely to the one propounded by the religious tradition into which they were born. Pure luck or something else? Actually, according to this topic a good deal of the theists here were not born into any religious tradition. Though I suppose most were born in a location where this religious tradition is at least nominally predominant, but the word "nominal" is the issue here. There are two other caveats, one being that the probability that somebody is born into a religious tradition is not per se the same as the probability that somebody holds these views at a given age and the other being that whether an intellectual tradition is predominant in a certain location while another is predominant in another location does not have an effect the truth of a tradition. Edit - I know you haven't made a claim based on this, but I decided to address it anyway.
|
|
matt
Clerk
Posts: 18
|
Post by matt on Apr 4, 2011 21:30:26 GMT
It sounds like the statement itself is intended to diffuse emotions. Sort of a "I'm not so different than you. Can't we just get along?" but is often taken as, "You're 99% atheist! You just don't have the balls to make that final jump!" Statistics show that the average person here in America has a very low opinion of atheists and it makes sense to me that atheists would want a statement that explains their belief without being offensive. This statement sounds like that's what it's meant to be and that it's not meant to be a challenge.
|
|
|
Post by captainzman on Apr 5, 2011 21:26:47 GMT
And I contend that it is a poorly worded one. We don't consider ourselves vegetarian towards certain types of animals and not others. We don't consider ourselves anarchists about certain types of governments and not others. We don't consider ourselves nihilists about certain types of ethical systems than others.
|
|
|
Post by noons on Apr 5, 2011 22:00:22 GMT
And I contend that it is a poorly worded one. We don't consider ourselves vegetarian towards certain types of animals and not others. We don't consider ourselves anarchists about certain types of governments and not others. We don't consider ourselves nihilists about certain types of ethical systems than others. I don't know, I think I'm onto something with the procrastinator version...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2011 22:36:19 GMT
I don't know, I think I'm onto something with the procrastinator version... You're not only onto something; you gave the perfect excuse for not doing anything. Imagine the numerous students that are thankful to you now.
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Apr 5, 2011 23:08:34 GMT
And I contend that it is a poorly worded one. We don't consider ourselves vegetarian towards certain types of animals and not others. We don't consider ourselves anarchists about certain types of governments and not others. We don't consider ourselves nihilists about certain types of ethical systems than others. Yet, despite this, if someone made a similar statement about being a "vegetarian" towards some vegetables we would understand the point they were making while at the same time realising that the use of the word is not strictly speaking correct. So the objection above strikes me as fairly petty.
|
|
|
Post by noons on Apr 5, 2011 23:16:19 GMT
I don't know, I think I'm onto something with the procrastinator version... You're not only onto something; you gave the perfect excuse for not doing anything. Imagine the numerous students that are thankful to you now. You say that like I should be less than fiercely proud of it.
|
|