Dawkins, NOMA, and You: Inchoate musings on things I don't really grok.

[Doug Shaver]

Instead of that noise let me go ahead and summarize as follows:

Meh Gerbil: "Why do you not believe there is a God?"
Doug Shaver: "I've see no evidence of a God."

So far, so good.

Meh Gerbil: "How about the world around us?"
Doug Shaver: "That all has naturalistic explanation."

I would say that, yes, but not because I infer it from my unbelief in God or any assumption of his nonexistence. There are atheists who reject naturalism without contradicting themselves -- which must be possible if, as you have insisted, atheism doesn't actually assert anything. Atheism cannot play any defining role in answering any question if it asserts nothing that can contribute to an answer.

[Meh Gerbil]

So far, so good.


I would say that, yes, but not because I infer it from my unbelief in God or any assumption of his nonexistence. There are atheists who reject naturalism without contradicting themselves -- which must be possible if, as you have insisted, atheism doesn't actually assert anything. Atheism cannot play any defining role in answering any question if it asserts nothing that can contribute to an answer.

Again, the term 'world-view' is meant to describe a starting point for understanding an individual.

That said, I'd say atheism certainly contributes to all answers for those that adopt it by virtue of the fact an alleged source of truth has been eliminated.

Let's say I have to chose between two lawyers I've never met:
Bob Bobbie
Dan Dannie

If I don't believe Bobs exist then that belief pretty much lands me Dan Dannie as a lawyer.
In fact, my search for a lawyer was short circuited - Bob wasn't even considered.

So while 'world-view' can be used as short hand to help understand an individual it is also used by the individual to short circuit the search for answers.

[shunyadragon]

Again, the term 'world-view' is meant to describe a starting point for understanding an individual.

I disagree, the world view may be determined by one's culture, and religion one is raised in, which is unfortunately the dominant case. World views can evolve and change, particularly in the case of the world view of atheism and various degrees of agnosticism. It is a fact that most non-believers were raised in a Theist world view, later adopt it and it was not their starting point.

[MaxVel]

I disagree, the world view may be determined by one's culture, and religion one is raised in, which is unfortunately the dominant case. World views can evolve and change, particularly in the case of the world view of atheism and various degrees of agnosticism. It is a fact that most non-believers were raised in a Theist world view, later adopt it and it was not their starting point.

Way to misunderstand, bruh.

[Carrikature]

It's perfectly relevant for the reasons I already mentioned.

Not really. What other people believe doesn't dictate what I believe. You can play word games with absence of belief vs active disbelief, but that's a red herring at best.

No there won't be.

So you say.

I find that so unlikely as to be absolutely implausible.

Well that certainly counts for a lot.

Absolutely ridiculous. One need not know about every god to know that the concept of divinity does, in fact, exist for most people in the world, and has always existed for most people in the world.

One has to be introduced to the concept of divinity in the first place, which my daughter (and many like her) have not been. Exposure to these concepts is very dependent on environment. But then, this bit about knowing every god is a strawman. I suggested nothing of the sort.

[Adrift]

Not really. What other people believe doesn't dictate what I believe.

That's silliness. Of course it does.

So you say.

Only because it's indisputably true.

Well that certainly counts for a lot.

Unless you're raising her in a bunker or on a private island, the very idea of it is laughable.

One has to be introduced to the concept of divinity in the first place, which my daughter (and many like her) have not been. Exposure to these concepts is very dependent on environment.

If they're old enough to play with other children, of course they've been exposed. And certainly she'll be exposed by the time she's a teenager. Everyone knows someone who believes in divinity of one kind or another.

But then, this bit about knowing every god is a strawman. I suggested nothing of the sort.

What are you talking about? You literally said, "most of my family is pretty blank when it comes to any god except for theirs". No one suggested that one must be intimate with every other religion, or with any other religion. The fact that your parents know other people who believe in the same god/s as they do is enough to make my case.

[Doug Shaver]

If I don't believe Bobs exist then that belief pretty much lands me Dan Dannie as a lawyer. In fact, my search for a lawyer was short circuited - Bob wasn't even considered.

Obviously. But epistemically speaking, that is not a problem unless you have been given a good reason to believe in Bobs and ignored it. If, on the other hand, you have made a good-faith effort to find Bob Bobbie and failed, then you can't be faulted for going with Dannie -- especially if, having found him, you have utilized his services and found them satisfactory.

'world-view' . . . is also used by the individual to short circuit the search for answers.

That can happen. You're not justified in assuming that it always happens.

[Darth Executor]

I disagree, the world view may be determined by one's culture, and religion one is raised in, which is unfortunately the dominant case. World views can evolve and change, particularly in the case of the world view of atheism and various degrees of agnosticism. It is a fact that most non-believers were raised in a Theist world view, later adopt it and it was not their starting point.

Shuny is like a nerd who doesn't actually know anything useful, sees two other nerds talking about an advanced science topic and, to avoid feeling dumb, interjects with some random factiod from Star Wars so as to reassure himself he knows just as much as they do.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny is like a nerd who doesn't actually know anything useful, sees two other nerds talking about an advanced science topic and, to avoid feeling dumb, interjects with some random factiod from Star Wars so as to reassure himself he knows just as much as they do.

[Doug Shaver]

What you're accidently illustrating here is how atheism is, in fact, a world-view.

What you are illustrating is your ability to misconstrue anything your adversaries say so as to make them out to be liars.

^--- As you can see, the adherence to atheism plays the defining role in how important questions about the world around us are answered by the atheist.

I don't see anything of the sort. It's my worldview, and I know how it's defined.

It frames how the questions are asked, what are the acceptable parameters for an answer, and so on.

No, it doesn't.

That is why the term 'atheism' can be a handy title for a world-view.

It's handy, all right, but only for your polemical purposes.

[Meh Gerbil]

What you are illustrating is your ability to misconstrue anything your adversaries say so as to make them out to be liars.

See: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dayligh...ive-worldview/
We've already established in this thread that 'atheism' is commonly used to refer to a world-view and to its technical definition.

[Doug Shaver]

See: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dayligh...ive-worldview/

Adam Lee is not the atheists' pope. We don't have to go along with anything he says.

We've already established in this thread . . . .

You Christians have reached a consensus that says we atheists are so deluded that we don't even know what we're talking about when we tell you what we believe.

[Meh Gerbil]

Adam Lee is not the atheists' pope. We don't have to go along with anything he says.

That has no bearing on the word having two distinct recognized meanings.

You Christians have reached a consensus that says we atheists are so deluded that we don't even know what we're talking about when we tell you what we believe.

You just declared Adam Lee as being wrong while at the same time claiming nobody has the right to define the term 'atheism' for all people.
My recognition that you've no clue what you're talking about has nothing to do with Christianity, but rather self-contradictory claims you make.

And no, I'm not saying all atheists are self-contradictory, just you.
I hope that provides you with the level of granularity you were seeking.

[Doug Shaver]

That has no bearing on the word having two distinct recognized meanings.

If both meanings are recognized, then on what grounds do you insist that only one of them is the right one?

You just declared Adam Lee as being wrong while at the same time claiming nobody has the right to define the term 'atheism' for all people.

I am not claiming that nobody has that right. I am claiming that we who call ourselves atheists have the right, and people who reject atheism do not have the right.

[Meh Gerbil]

If both meanings are recognized, then on what grounds do you insist that only one of them is the right one?

I think we're in a agreement.
I'll leave it at that.