How do we define theism, and atheism?

[guillaumeb]

I define each as philosophical positions. A position that one might arrive at after thought on the matter. But I would also argue that having a position depends on the ability to articulate a position.

I think, therefore I can have a philosophical opinion, in a Cartesian sense.


Previously, I framed both as beliefs, and that framing caused some heated arguments here, so I am attempting to strike a neutral tone. And the term philosophical position seems to fit that.

So in that vein, I would further argue that anyone lacking some form of speech cannot have a position. Babies are neither theists nor atheists because they lack the capacity to have such thoughts.

[AtheistCrusader]

1. You are the only person I know that defines them that way.

Theist

noun
1.
the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism ).
2.
belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism ).


Atheist

noun
1.
a person who does not believe in God or gods

[Ohio Dem]

7. This

It's not really complicated.

[trotsky]

22. Yep.

It's part of his agenda though, to define others while screaming that no one can define him.

[Irish_Dem]

40. I don't fit either definition.

I am hung up on the "ruler of the universe" bit.
Sounds a bit antiquated and wrong.

[trotsky]

75. It's pretty simple.

The question is, "Do you believe in what you considered to be a god or gods?"

If the answer is "yes," you're a theist. If it's "no," then you're an atheist. "I don't know" is a statement of not believing, so that counts as "no."

The follow-up question is, "Are you certain of that belief?"

If you're a theist and answer "yes," then you are a gnostic theist.
If you're a theist and answer "no," then you're an agnostic theist.

If you're an atheist and answer "yes," then you are a gnostic atheist.
If you're an atheist and answer "no," then you're an agnostic atheist.

From my personal experience, most theists are gnostic theists. And most atheists are agnostic atheists.

[marylandblue]

2. What I think caused the heat

Was the framing of beliefs as unprovable positions. Now you call it a "philosophical position," that is something you arrive at after some thought. So what were the thoughts that led you to this position? Please bear in mind that a lot of heat was also generated by your cryptic response and/or your refusal to answer certain questions. If you don't clear up some of that muck, I suspect this thread too will generate heat without light.

[guillaumeb]

30. Beliefs are unprovable.

Thus the necessity for belief. But the word belief seems to associated with religion, and I feel that is why some atheists reject the word belief for their position.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

33. I'll try this one more time, but I imagine you will fight it.

There is a difference between these two statements. Hopefully you can see that:

1. I do not believe in any gods.
2. There are absolutely no gods.

Here's the difference:
1. Statement 1 reflects an agnostic atheist position. Which is most people that call themselves atheist.
2. Statement 2 reflects a gnostic atheist position. This is a really small percentage of atheists.

You want everyone that says they are an atheist to be a gnostic atheist (statement 2) when that just isn't the case. I'm an agnostic atheist (statement 1). I don't have a belief. There is nothing for me to prove. I don't believe in a god. That is a statement of fact (about me) and a statement of non-belief.

[bitterross]

153. Rarely am I this blunt in a response - but you are just wrong.

Atheists are not divided into your two categories of agnostic atheists and gnostic atheists. Either you don't believe in god at all and are, therefore, an atheist, or you are unsure and are agnostic.

Agnostic cannot be used as a modifier for atheist. There is not a class of people nor commonly used term "agnostic atheist" that you propose. That is precisely what the word agnostic means - the portion of people who are uncertain.

I am an atheist. I do not believe there are any gods - period. I need not further define myself by adding the word gnositc to confirm I have no doubt of my position. Saying I am an atheist says it all. If one wishes to be in the unsure category then one is simply an agnostic.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

156. I am sorry but YOU are just wrong.

Theism is about belief in god(s). Gnosticism is about knowledge. You can be a gnostic or agnostic theist (you know which god you believe in or you believe in a god but you don't know what that god "looks" like). You can be a gnostic or agnostic atheist. It's what the words mean.

Maybe this will help.



They way you are using the words is not based on what they actually mean, but what you think they mean or what them to mean. I'm not sure which. But it is YOU that is wrong.

[marylandblue]

157. What if you just say "I don't know?"

[Cuthbert Allgood]

158. Seems that believing in a god is a binary.

You do or you don't. If you think there might be a god, I would guess you would be an agnostic theist. If you think there probably isn't--agnostic atheist.

I think there are other categories outside these two binary options (though they are not what the person I responded to indicated).

Ignostic I don't think this addresses any belief or disbelief, but more semantics.
Apatheist--That seems to fit what you are saying?

[marylandblue]

159. Apatheist seems to be someone who doesn't care

But if you say, we don't know and can't know? We can't assume or prove anything either way, but you would like to know.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

160. I think that makes you an agnostic atheist

You don't believe in a god and you don't know.

I know the term "atheist" makes a lot of people uncomfortable because of the connotation that gets put on it by society and (mostly) believers. But it's the right word when you don't believe in a god.

[bitterross]

162. That is my point. It is binary.

You cannot be a little bit pregnant. You cannot be a little bit atheist. If you are in doubt, then you are agnostic.

I do not know why anyone need a continuum for this.

[bitterross]

161. Pretty Pictures from the ULC and Wikipedia don't make you right.

Last edited Sun Jan 7, 2018, 09:08 PM - Edit history (2)

I'll defer to a real authority.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic
Definition of agnostic
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2 : a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something political agnostics

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism
Definition of atheism
1 a : a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
b : a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

You cannot be a little bit pregnant and you cannot be a little bit atheist. You are or you are not.

If you are little bit atheist then you are an agnostic.

As an atheist, it annoys me that you want to water down my position with modifying terms. That you want to let in the possibility that I may have some doubts. Why do you need a continuum on something that is so clearly binary?

ON EDIT:

The two places I find that diagram are on the Universal Life Church page and Wikipedia. Don't refer to either of those as authorities on anything unless you want me to laugh harder than I am laughing right now.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

163. Your definition proves my point.

gnosticism is about knowledge: "...any ultimate reality is unknown and probably unknowable"--i.e. we are unsure about the position.

theism is about belief: "...lack of a belief..."

First you answer whether you believe in a god. That's the binary part. If you don't, you're an atheist. Then you decide how sure you are of it. If you don't claim that your position is correct, then you are an agnostic atheist. That's where I fall. I don't believe in a god, but I'm not leaving out the possibility it exists. I just don't believe in gods.

Nobody is watering it down. You would then be a gnostic atheist. Because you are sure of your position.

[Voltaire2]

164. "1 a : a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods "

Did you read your own definition of atheist? Did you? Read it again.

[bitterross]

167. Yes, I read it.

Most normal, common usage of the word atheist is one who doesn't believe in any gods. Most normal, common usage of the word agnostic is for those who are uncertain.

"lacking" means just that. I lack belief in a god. I have little to no belief. That makes me an atheist. Not an agnostic.

You are simply splitting hairs because you don't want to admit that when people say atheist they don't mean someone who is in doubt about it. That is what the word agnostic is for.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

168. Again. You make my point.

Most normal, common usage of the word atheist is one who doesn't believe in any gods. Most normal, common usage of the word agnostic is for those who are uncertain.

Atheist is about belief and agnostic is about knowledge/certainty.

I get that society uses the word atheist with a certain connotation and agnostic with a more generous connotation. But that doesn't change what the words ACTUALLY mean. And, in your first two sentences, you use the words as they really mean. You just don't apply them that way. And then you finish with

when people say atheist they don't mean someone who is in doubt about it. That is what the word agnostic is for.

Yeah, because agnostic is about the certainty of the beliefs or lack of beliefs.

[marylandblue]

49. Why are beliefs unprovable?

I've never understood it. I am talking about belief in whether something exists or does not exist. That is always, at least in principle, subject to evidentiary claims or lack thereof. I am not talking about opinions, like "which language is best for poetry." That's an opinion. Totally different. I am also not talking about absolute proof, such as 2+2=4.

I am distinguishing between difference senses of the word belief, which are united solely in the fact that they share the same word, but otherwise have little in common.

The statement, "I believe God exists," is a statement about a fact such that it is equivalent to asserting "God exists," just like apples and the United States exist.

The statment, "I believe vanilla is the best flavor of ice cream," is an unproveable opinion equivalent to "I like ice cream best."

[guillaumeb]

53. You can prove some things, others cannot be proven.

A basic difference between fact and opinion.

PS.
butter pecan is actually the best flavor of iced cream.

[marylandblue]

55. Correct, but

But what fact, as opposed to opinion, is unprovable, at least in principle.

[guillaumeb]

59. Are you asking my opinion?

When I say fact, I am referring to what can be known. Water freezes, things dropped will fall. Those are facts. Or the fact that a day is approximately 24 hours.

Political ideas, taste in food, beliefs, cannot be proven to be correct or true.

[marylandblue]

62. Some beliefs can be proven.

"I believe flowers bloom in the spring," can be proven.

[AtheistCrusader]

58. We can, at least prove that butter pecan ice cream exists.

That it must exist, that other people have consumed it, that it is produced by the ton somewhere in the world, even if we have never personally seen/tasted it ourselves.

Also, we could probably define 'best' by consumption rate. If it were the 'best' flavor, the most people would seek to consume it. It would be the most ubiquitous flavor available as producers sought to meet demand. If supply were constrained, we could still establish it by the price point, as it would be imbued with collector/scarcity value.

Why are all your examples so fucking awful?

[marylandblue]

151. Because if he identified "God does not exist" as a statement

of fact rather than opinion, then he'd have to give up the position he's been arguing for years. So he finds a thousand ways to say that theism and atheism are not statements about facts, but mere opinions, on par with "who is your favorite Ancient Greek deity?" which has no bearing on whether they actually exist or not. I like Athena, I always had a thing for smart women.

[AtheistCrusader]

166. Big fan of Eris myself.

Smart, and a troublemaker. My kinda person.

[Voltaire2]

172. She was truly awesome outside the gates of Troy.

[AtheistCrusader]

52. Lack of belief doesn't require proof.

Your 'beliefs can't be proven' thing is wrong. It's just as wrong as 'can't prove a negative'. Bullshit.

There is no elephant in my pocket.

I can prove that negative. Some are just more testable than others. There is really only one scenario in which it would be impossible for us to in some way perceive a supernatural being that has some influence over our universe;

1. It must needs be omnipotent, and omniscient.
2. It must desire for us not to perceive it.

If those conditions are true, by definition, we cannot override the actions of a literally omnipotent being, that can see everything we are trying to do to perceive it.


That still doesn't rule out the possibility of us discovering that the universe bears unmistakable signs of creation. Just because we can't perceive a creator, doesn't mean we can't prove the universe requires a creator to exist.

So far, the evidence simply hasn't led us to that conclusion.

[marylandblue]

69. I agree with that, except

I'd say lack of evidence is a form of proof, at least in some cases. There is no evidence unicorns exist. We take that as proof they don't exist, and that it isn't even worth talking about. God is in a unique category of lacking evidence for existence, yet many people, including atheists, find it worth talking about.

[AtheistCrusader]

79. At some point it does kinda become that.

Especially when a fellow travelling claim is that the hypothetical supernatural god WANTS a relationship with you. If that were the case, and the god is actually omnipotent, it COULD NOT FAIL to be known to you. By definition.

At the very least, we can rule out most major religions claims as being internally inconsistent and mutually exclusive to the point of ruling each other and themselves, out.

If I am being honest with myself, I do still have to leave open the possibility we will discover some sort of supernatural creator (or the toolmarks left behind by such a creator upon the universe) that isn't the caricature of 'god' that the various religions claim. But at some point we will either be able to discover that, or rule it out as unnecessary.

If it's not necessary, and doesn't want us to perceive it, and we can't perceive it, we might as well proceed as if it doesn't exist, even if it does in fact exist.

[Lordquinton]

173. I'd take it a step further

The evidence that we have gathered over the years has done more to disprove a Divine being as described in holy texts than people will admit. Lighting rods, germ theory plate techtonics, theory of evolution. All have pushed back the realm of divinity to be little more than someone saying "that's from both of us" as a gift is given.

[Eko]

3. You are an atheist.

You don't believe in Zeus as well as tons of other gods. Is your non belief in Zeus a belief and a philosophical opinion?

[trixie2]

4. You have made an excellent point!

What once was a belief is now mythology or even a nice backdrop for fiction.

[guillaumeb]

31. If you have convinced yourself, I understand.

[Eko]

137. Nope you are.

You dont believe in Zeus do you? If not then you are an atheist when it comes to all of the gods you don't believe in.

Atheist
noun
1.
a person who does not believe in God or gods

[marylandblue]

150. This was actually the ancient Roman position before Constantine

They considered Christians atheists because they only had one god and didn't believe in all the others.

[trixie2]

5. I never wander into the religion topic

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh! As an atheist myself, I never even consider religion, except for when I support one's right to religion. There is no thought. There is no framing of an idea. There is no belief. Atheism, to me, is not a belief but rather a disbelief in fictional characters that others kneel down to, pay money to and generally it baffles me on all levels. To frame a belief would be like my telling you that if you don't kneel down and pay homage to my clay figurine a child made then you have framed a philosophical position against a kindergarten art project.

I have no philosophical position at all and will appease you in your philosophical/religious attractions to whichever deity you endear yourself too.

I am not trying to inflame the thread but merely am sick and tired of some people who can't hold the belief that if I don't lie prone on the floor to a gnome/dragon/firefly/Charlie Brown.................I must have thought long and hard about my position. I may shake my head to myself about the mere thought of bright, educated people believing in some myth but I will stand next to you to allow freedom of religion as long as you don't need to invoke your brand on the rest of the country.

[Moostache]

28. A cogent and lucid description of my position as well! Thank you!

Atheism to me is not an all-encompassing belief or system of thought or anything more than the rejection of specific religious claims based on a lack of evidence to support the claims made. Once I determined that the god hypothesis lacked independent supporting and confirming evidence, the game was over and I spent no additional time pondering the play-by-play!

No gods 1
gods 0

That is the end of the issue for me.

[guillaumeb]

45. How did you arrive at your position?

Of being an atheist?

[trixie2]

136. Do you believe in Huldufolk?

the belief in elves, quite popular in Iceland. Taoism? Hinduism? Wicca? Are you a Polytheist?

[guillaumeb]

174. Some believe in them.

And you?

[trixie2]

175. But do you believe in them?

My point being that most people think most religions are silly except their own. Someone up thread mentioned Zeus and I agree with that. I don't believe in Zeus, Taoism, Huldufolk or any other religion. I spend absolutely no time in discrediting all as I think they are all as silly as believing in elves, or tree sprites.

How long did it take you to decide on your own religion?

[guillaumeb]

179. My entire life.

My religious beliefs evolved over time.

[marylandblue]

182. But are you a huldufolkist or an ahuldufolkist?

[yallerdawg]

6. I think it is exactly as Rush's Geddy Lee sings:

You can choose a ready guide
In some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide
You still have made a choice.

You can choose from phantom fears
And kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose free will.


It also seems there is an awful lot of Atheistic proselytzing going on here!

"Philosophically," though, I agree with gb!

[Eko]

8. Athiesm is just a non belief.

If your non belief in santa claus is a philosophy then by the standards you use to define philosophy then yes Atheism is a philosophy.

[yallerdawg]

9. When I was a child, I believed in Santa Claus.

As an adult, I firmly believe in the spirit and tradition of Santa Claus, just as real as the imaginary childhood belief.

I'm sorry you discovered a fat man in a red suit doesn't actually come down the chimney.

I'm sorry you lost the adult concept when you lost the child's concept.

[Eko]

10. You make a lot of assumptions there.

[Eko]

11. When I was a young kid,

we didn't have a chimney, so I never believed that. You are also assuming I ever believed in Santa Claus. For some reason you decide for me what concept I have lost and haven't with no reason for doing so.
Like I said, lots of assumptions there buddy.

[yallerdawg]

12. Good conversation!

You've really added to the debate and understanding!

Drive by anytime!!

[Eko]

13. Wow, really?

That is your answer? If you want to run away by all means.

[Eko]

14. I mean, some people

might have stepped back for a second and thought, maybe their family is of a religion that doesnt believe in Santa Claus, at the very least. But, you just doubled down. Interesting.

[trixie2]

16. You do know that the original lyric was

If you choose not to decide, you cannot have made a choice

It is in the original liner notes to the original album. Apparently they changed the line so it would flow better.

I could care less but apparently you are trying to prove your point.

Let me ask you this: If you a truly a believer, why do you care? Are you trying to proselytize?

Can't believe I fell for this shit. Good bye.

[sprinkleeninow]

176. "I couldn't care less." I could not care less, IOW.

A-fracken-hem.

[guillaumeb]

32. Yes, there is a lot of proselytyzing from one side.

And atheists have made a choice. But some frame the choice as a non-choice, as if calling a lemon a lime makes it a lime.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

36. As if calling bald a hair color makes it hair.

As if calling a TV that is off "a TV that is on."
As if calling not collecting stamps a hobby.

[yallerdawg]

54. I appreciate your efforts to "tone it down" and make it all a more civil conversation...

on a variety of issues 'they' have taken umbrage with.

'They' continue to focus on making it ugly, personal attacks on individuals instead of elevated respectful debate and discussion.

While some of us try to make it better, others will continue to drag it all into the gutter.

[guillaumeb]

56. And I have noticed that when people post here in any positive way about religion,

the same aggressive responses are directed against that poster. Almost as if some feel that this group is restricted to criticism of religion and criticism of believers.

[AtheistCrusader]

60. Rejecting your claim is a form of choice, sure.

But it's not a positive claim. We don't have burden of proof. It's not a belief, as you keep trying to frame it as.

[guillaumeb]

61. I believe that it is all semantics.

Some cannot use the word belief to describe something that they actually believe.

[AtheistCrusader]

65. Because it's not a belief. It's a lack of belief.

No semantics here.

You're doing this because you know the burden of proof belongs on the people making the claim, and you can't prove it, so...
In fairness, I wouldn't want to defend that hill either.

[marylandblue]

152. And you can't use belief in God as a statement

of a fact about the world subject to evidence, rather than a statement of opinion, even when the person actually does believe that there is evidence of God's existence.

[Voltaire2]

15. well we do agree it seems on one thing: your prior attempt was a self inflicted tragedy.

This one is just silly. Not tragic.

[EvilAL]

17. People that have faith,

That believe in things without evidence have to project that fault onto people that have no belief in it. I don't know why this is, but most of them do it.
They just can't comprehend that some people do not believe what they believe. So they try to make the lack of belief a belief.
It's ridiculous.

[guillaumeb]

34. Amazingly harmonius response with others here.

Notice that I avoided mention of a choir.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

38. Notice that you didn't avoid mentioning a choir.

And it wasn't even a little bit clever the way you did that.

[sprinkleeninow]

178. Instead of your 'choir' I liken it to your 'peanut gallery'. 😶

Yay, Buffalo Bob!

Alright. I'm outta here.

Folksy not welcome.

[Act_of_Reparation]

18. "Philosophical"

I don't think you understand what this word means.

[trotsky]

24. It's a common error many theists make.

They're so used to slipping back and forth between "nebulous creator intelligence" mode and "Jesus is my savior who died for our sins" mode.

Basic theism is in no way a philosophy. If you're a theist, you believe in a god or gods. That's all that can be said. There is nothing that indicates how you should live your life, how you should treat others, where you came from, where you go - nothing.

RELIGION adds all that on, and anchors it to theism by claiming its teachings are what the god(s) want(s).

Similarly, atheism is in no way a philosophy. Says nothing about to live your life, etc.

Humanism, utilitarianism, etc., could be considered philosophies compatible with atheism.

guillaumeb is again just confused and desperate to frame atheism in a such a way as to protect his religious beliefs from criticism.

[Fix The Stupid]

25. This post should be pinned at the top of this forum. Great stuff. n/t

[Act_of_Reparation]

26. I mean to say that understanding what theism and atheism are is very basic philosophy.

Theism is belief in gods. Atheism is the inverse of theism. Philosophically, these are binary propositions. If you are not one, you are the other. If you believe in gods, you are a theist. If you don't believe in gods, you are an atheist. The circumstances of your belief or disbelief aren't relevant.

Guillame is rolling out the tired old equivocation trope he always uses, conflating small-"a" atheism -- disbelief in gods -- with capital-"a" Atheism, the self-identifying movement.

[trotsky]

29. Ah, good point.

Yes, you don't have to reach a reasoned conclusion to be an atheist. You simply have to NOT be a theist.

[rurallib]

27. what he (or she) said

nobody claims that not believing in a flat earth is a philosophy. Neither is not believing in a god or gods. It is simply a stated position that does not lead to any philosophy of life.

[Eko]

138. Great analogy.

[guillaumeb]

35. More harmony.

[Act_of_Reparation]

46. You seem to find it unusual when people are in agreement.

Is it because you're used to people not agreeing with you?

[guillaumeb]

51. I find it interesting that the same tiny group

often employs the same tactics, and the same negative tone, and the same general aggression toward any here who defend religion.

[Act_of_Reparation]

66. I find it interesting a theist using the same arguments...

...the same tactics and the same hypocritical behaviors we've seen hundreds of times over the years assumes his reception here is due to conspiracy and not, say, the weakness or unoriginality of his arguments.

[guillaumeb]

72. Not speaking to my point,

but I understand your need to feel this way. Look at all of the threads here, and it is obvious which side feels the need to be negative. And which side apparently feels the need to insult, and condescend.

[Act_of_Reparation]

73. I understand your need to feel this way.

It's obvious which side needs to feel aggrieved, persecuted, and sanctimonious.

[guillaumeb]

74. Yes, it is.

And it is demonstrated here constantly, but again, by one side.

[AtheistCrusader]

81. Oh please. You've been caught doing it plenty.

And you're just the most recent in, what for me, has been a 12 year history of people like you tromping through here.

[guillaumeb]

97. He did it first!!!

No mom, he did it first!!!!!!!

Argue or frame as you wish, but it is obvious to most what is happening, and who is doing it. It is so constant that perhaps those doing it no longer recognize it for what it is. A fish does not notice the water.

[AtheistCrusader]

106. I note that when you say 'most' you seem to actually mean 'me'.

So, good luck with that.

[guillaumeb]

111. No, I mean "most", as in most.

If I meant you, I would say so.

[AtheistCrusader]

112. Don't pretend you have a massive silent, approving audience here.

[guillaumeb]

115. One can hope, but I do not pretend to such things.

[marylandblue]

148. I don't think you notice what you are doing either

Dragging arguments in circles, not based on merit, but based on whether the opponent is a member of the "choir" or whatever new euphemism you are using now, or condescendingly "understanding" their point with ever actually addressing it.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

92. Come on, man. Admit your own fault in this.

I can be an ass at times. I get that. I admit it.

For you to act like you have nothing to do with this is just silly.

[AtheistCrusader]

80. Yup. And people can scroll on back and see that history and how it has evolved over time.

It's not a flattering view for your position.

[AtheistCrusader]

67. I find it interesting that you deem religion worth defending.

Especially given it's history, and the dogma of current dominant religions in the US, and their political mores.

[Eko]

139. Dude,

your tag line is a perfect example of passive aggression towards Atheists. Pot meet kettle.

[MineralMan]

19. That is how YOU define them. There is no "we."

One is a belief. The other is not. Disbelief is not belief. It is the antonym of belief.

[guillaumeb]

37. Right.

I will admit that you seem to have convinced yourself that a position is a non-position and that a choice is a non-choice.

[MineralMan]

43. Uff da! More gobbledygook....

Note: If you haven't already noticed, I am limiting my replies to you in subthreads to one. This was it for this subthread. That will be my policy from now on. I have no interest in lengthy banterings about nonsense with you.

[guillaumeb]

48. How kind of you.

[Sneederbunk]

154. Some may say one reply is too many.

[MineralMan]

155. Some may say many things.

[AtheistCrusader]

68. We make a choice about your claim. We do not have a 'belief'.

Well, most of us do not.

Hitchens and Dawkins both held out the possibility that they were wrong, and that evidence could convince them. Hitchens went the furthest, coming to a conclusion based on the history and the lack of evidence that the idea of a god was 'not very likely', but that's still not a belief.

[Eko]

140. Position and choice

do not equal a belief.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

20. I understand why you don't want to continue the discussion where it started

because that went pretty poorly for you.

But, no, you are not correct. Atheism is the lack of a belief in gods. If you have not belief in gods, you are an atheist. It isn't a philosophical standpoint.

Sad that we need to trot out those things you should already have seen, but is bald a type of hair? Is barefoot a type of shoe? Having not belief in a god is not a belief in anything. It's a lack of belief.

[guillaumeb]

39. More harmony.

Almost an echo of another poster in phrasing. An interesting coincidence? Perhaps.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

42. Maybe if everyone thinks the same thing about you

it has more to do with you than it does with everyone?

Perhaps you just got your ass handed to you in that thread?

[guillaumeb]

47. More coincidence.

Again, nearly an echo.

[AtheistCrusader]

84. I've seen this tactic before.

Next you'll start up claims about a secret facebook group or some other rallying point where we MUST be sharing our narrative.

Sup Rug. Starboard Tack. Cbayer. TB.

(I'm not suggesting you are those people, just that your line of reasoning is the same)
Nihil sub sole novum.

[guillaumeb]

86. Others who were driven out by the overwhelming negativity.

Interesting that you mentioned them.

The one-sided negativity is so blatant as to be impossible to ignore. But perhaps it is excused as necessary by some, for whatever reason.

[AtheistCrusader]

89. AHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA

[Act_of_Reparation]

99. "Others who were driven out by the overwhelming negativity."

Yeah, that's it. They were all a bunch of little innocents pushed from this little corner of Eden by the Atheist Badz.

Of course, there is the Interfaith group. A lovely little place where one can discuss religion or irreligion without the corrupting influence of the Atheist Badz. But, for some strange reason, the goodly people of the Religion forum never really bothered to use it. Odd, isn't it?

Pro-tip: it's not odd, when you really think about it.

[guillaumeb]

100. Speaking of groups, there is also a dedicated group for atheists.

But for some strange reason, some non-theists prefer to attack religion in this forum. Odd, is it not?

But for some, there seems almost to be a compulsion to find enemies.

[Act_of_Reparation]

101. I wouldn't go tugging at that thread.

Look where you are.

[guillaumeb]

102. My point remains.

What prevents non-theists from posting the same things in that group?

[AtheistCrusader]

108. Because there won't be any theists around to test these claims/issues/whatever.

If I wanted head-nodding echo chamber ditto head shit, I'd listen to AM radio.

[guillaumeb]

113. An excellent point.

[Act_of_Reparation]

129. You have no point.

I come here to keep my teeth sharp. It's no secret. I've said it before.

I'm not the one lying to myself about why I keep coming back.

[AtheistCrusader]

107. I came here for a discussion outside my own echo chamber.

I have very little need and very little to learn by discussing with other atheists how unimpressive the evidence for religion is.

Sometimes I learn things by talking to theists about their faith. (Not you though)

[AtheistCrusader]

83. Ockham's razor led me to a different conclusion.

[guillaumeb]

85. Not if you had used it correctly.

[AtheistCrusader]

87. Non-overlapping magesteria. You stick to your faithyness and I'll do the philosophy thing.

[guillaumeb]

88. Razors can be sharp.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

21. Because this needs to be separate: having speech/language is not a prerequisite to thought.

You know that, right? We don't think in language. We can have thoughts without language.

You keep saying the lack of language means that babies cannot have "opinions" and "positions," but that's just not true.

[guillaumeb]

41. You can think without language?

What an interesting concept.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

44. Of course you can. Jesus. Really? We need to have this discussion?

If we needed language to think, why do we have different languages? We would all speak the same language if language was necessary to think. You know, because you have to think "I want that person that I like that feeds me" before you can say "mama" or whatever word is attached to it.

You can't really be serious about this.

[guillaumeb]

50. Amazing indeed, that you apparently believe this.

Did you spontaneously write your response, or did you think of what you wanted to say?

And if you thought, what language did you use?
Personally, I think in French or English depending on who I am speaking with, and my speech follows. I am also assuming here that you are unilingual or you would realize that some of us do think and dream in different languages.

Babies have needs, and they cry to express those needs. Their needs are for food and warmth and companionship.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

57. You know you just proved my point, right?

I had thoughts. My brain then translated those thoughts into words. We don't think in words. We think in thoughts. When I had a thought, I didn't think in any language. Language is learned (just like religion). Which is why we all speak different languages.

You just don't realize the translation from thought to language because your brain does it so quickly. If you are fluent enough in more than one language, you can have that translation from thought to words go equally quickly in both languages. But that doesn't mean that you are actually thinking in that language. Because, again, if we needed language to think, we would all speak the same language.

"they cry to express those needs" EXACTLY. They have thoughts (food, warmth, sadness, happy) and since they don't yet have language, they use other means to express those thoughts.

[guillaumeb]

71. Can you think without words? No, except for needs.

What babies express and recognize are needs, not thoughts.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

78. Of course I can.

I can't necessarily convey that thinking to you without words, but I can think just fine.

If you were correct, why would there ever be a time when you "can't come up with the right word"? That shouldn't happen if you don't have thoughts without language.

Additionally, if you were correct, why would we have different languages? And how would we ever possibly be able to learn a language if we can't think before we did? We have to be able to process and think about what the language is to learn it.

[guillaumeb]

82. We can experience and recognize basic needs and inputs.

But abstract thought is not possible without some way of organizing that thought. And that way is language. Even animals use language as they can to express things.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

91. Again, not true.

How do we learn a language, then, if the language is the a priori system for any thought beyond basic needs and inputs?

[guillaumeb]

94. As we learn language, our ability to think and express those thoughts increases.

Babies learn language because humans have a need to communicate.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

119. We agree and disagree

Our area of agreement: Yes. Language helps us with more abstract thought because it gives us a marker for the abstract thing. It let's us represent it symbolically so we can ponder it more easily. With that, I agree.

Our area of disagreement: WE DO NOT NEED LANGUAGE FOR THOUGHT. That isn't a thing. We think before we can speak. We don't think in words. If language were the precursor for thought, how would we ever think enough to learn the language?

[guillaumeb]

121. Humans have a need to communicate.

And language in its many forms is the main way that most humans communicate.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

123. I will also agree with that.

I fully support Chomsky's notion that as humans we have a predisposition for language that has developed through evolution.

Language is certainly key, though in NO MEANS the only avenue for, that communication.

But language is not an a priori requirement for thought. That just isn't true.

[guillaumeb]

125. A predisposition based on our ability.

We can, therefore we must.

[AtheistCrusader]

126. But you already tripped over the problem.

We don't need it for thought. We need it to communicate. Thought and communication are different domains.

I don't need to communicate thought to myself. That is not how my thoughts are formed.

[guillaumeb]

130. But we think becasue we have language, and because we have experience.

A baby has needs. Adults, except for Trump, have more complex needs.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

131. No. We have language because we think.

How could we come up with the first language if we needed language to think?

Edit to add: was scrolling through and thought this was a reply to me. I was wrong. Sorry for stepping in.

[guillaumeb]

132. No problem, it is a good response.

And it would be a good subject for research. Which type of hominid first used language?

[Cuthbert Allgood]

127. I don't think Chomsky or I would agree with your second sentence,

but I will just leave it at an agreement that we have a predisposition for language as humans.

[MineralMan]

103. Wrong again.

My cat sees a hole in the ground. It sniffs the hole. Depending on what it detects, it will either go somewhere else or set up a watch on that hole, ready to pounce. It thinks about the situation, decides what to do, plans its action and lies in wait.

My cat does not have words. It make sounds which I can sometimes interpret, but it definitely thinks. It plans. It has a concept of the future. It does not need words to think.

Now, I cannot experience what happens in my cat's brain, but it does not use language, my cat.

I do not dream in words, either. And yet, I can have complex dreams with multiple scenes. They are almost entirely visual. You may have similar dreams. Dreams are thoughts, but do not require words.

[guillaumeb]

104. Well, that settles it.

No more to say about this, except that your cat acts on instinct. Instinct allows it to learn from experience.
Your comments regarding the cat's future plans are interesting but that is all.

If you personally never dream with dialogue that is interesting, but hardly definitive. In fact:

Verbal language in dreams is the speech—most commonly in the form of a dialogue between the dreamer him/herself and other dream characters—which forms part of the overall (mostly imagistic) dream scenario. Historically, there have been abundant references to verbal language in dreams going back millennia. Early in the twentieth century German psychiatrist Emil Kraepelin presented a large corpus of dream speech, almost all from his own dreams and virtually all deviant, without any pretense that this was representative of dream speech in general.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verbal_language_in_dreams

others might disagree with you. I generally dream with dialogue, and the language varies depending on the day. If I speak a lot of French that day, my dreams are generally in French.

[Voltaire2]

143. So music does not convey abstract thoughts

without words? Beethoven’s 3rd symphony, for example, considered one of the great works of classical music, entirely lacking in words, just expresses basic needs? It’s nothing more than a post shit grunt?

[AtheistCrusader]

169. The Great Gig In The Sky. The entirety of Fantasia. Springdanz.

1812 Overture

[AtheistCrusader]

90. I can think of things that don't have words to express them.

WHY DO ALL YOUR EXAMPLES SUCK?!

[guillaumeb]

95. I would ask for an example, but since you have no words for these things,

you are straying into parody here.

[AtheistCrusader]

105. Can you seriously not conceive of a concept, in the universe, that has no existing name?

Are you limited to visualizing, imagining, or thinking about things that only have names?!

[guillaumeb]

109. Again, since you cannot give me an example of these unameable things,

words fail me.

[AtheistCrusader]

110. How embarrassing for you.

[guillaumeb]

114. You cannot imagine.

Words do not exist for how I feel.

[AtheistCrusader]

116. In the 1920's it was postulated that there might be relativistic particles with no mass

that move very slowly. They coined the term 'Weyl fermions' to represent it.

Totally hypothetical idea. A merely mathematical abstraction. A hypothesis to fit an observation of an effect.
They were actually discovered and observed in 2015.

That's an idea of an abstract concept with no name, being imagined, puzzled apart, given a name, discussed, looked for, and later found.
Language didn't have 'Weyl fermions' in 1920. Science didn't know there was a thing to be given that name. Somehow we were able to conceive of it, name it, and then find it.


THAT is what we are getting at. I don't need language to establish a concept. I can express it in other ways. I can hold it in my head and examine it without need for a name, without need for a word. Sometimes people call things a 'widget' until they have a name for it. Humans can fully abstract concepts with no name.

[guillaumeb]

118. And how do they formulate and examine these abstract concepts?

They use words, and language. When I write, I am not literally thinking of how to spell each word and "sounding it" in my brain. But that is because the process is so fast as to be unconscious.

[AtheistCrusader]

124. I don't need words to represent a thing until I need to communicate it to another person.

Up until then, it requires no label for me to conceive of or examine, or think about it.


Normally, I am happy to be an asshole, but I'm going to throw a bone here and ask this question in all seriousness with no rancor.

Can you imagine abstracts at all? I ask, because not all humans can, and I'm not casting aspersions in doing so. People who can't may have other strengths. I'm not suggesting it's a deficiency. But the conversation might be akin to 'why can't you run' to a person with no legs, if in fact you are not able to visualize imagination. Some people can't. No biggie, but it might be breaking our argument.

http://theconversation.com/blind-in-the-mind-why-some-people-cant-see-pictures-in-their-imagination-86849

[guillaumeb]

128. I agree.

With your title. But to communicate you need a method. And, as I mentioned, thought occurs so fast as to be unnoticed.

As to your question, I occasionally write music. Often I compose the music in my brain. I can hear the sounds I wish to use, as well as see the shapes and colors of the notes.

when I play/talk with people, especially people who write music, they all understand what I wrote above.

So yes, I fully agree with your idea of abstract visualization. (I italicized the words to indicate a non-literal meaning.)

[AtheistCrusader]

133. There is a concept in music called tonal color.

Ten years ago, I had no concept of what it was, and no words to express it, but I had a general feeling that there was something there in music that I was picking up on, and couldn't express. I didn't even know how to ask another person if they could hear what I was hearing. Couldn't define it, couldn't explain it.

Bumbled about a bit in discussing it with some people over the years, and apparently it's a well defined concept and there are terms and expectations that you can use to explain and communicate it.

I was aware of it, before I had any language to compartmentalize it with, or communicate it with.

[guillaumeb]

134. Your ear was "aware", but had no langauge to describe it?

I understand. The use of minor forms to express color is well documented. Often used to convey a feeling of unease.

[AtheistCrusader]

135. Exactly.

A pattern I could perceive on some level, but didn't know what it was. I'm not a musician so I didn't have any background or education to help me understand what I was picking up on.

[marylandblue]

146. You were already given examples already

Music. You think in music when playing an instrument, you aren't giving yourself verbal instructions on how to play, you just play. Other examples include thinking in pictures.

Also, you were given an example in animals, a cat problem solving to catch a mouse. There is an extensive body of literature on animals and their ability to think without language - problem solve in novel situations, learn by observing, communicate without language etc.

That this is even a question for you is astounding. It's not really even something to debate here. Go ask a cognitive psychologist. I am sure they will have an answer for you. Please come back and tell us.

[Towlie]

63. You're right. I suspect many people don't realize how important language is to thinking.

And our language influences our thinking to a much greater degree than people realize. For example, it prevents us from discussing how the universe was created without implicitly granting that the universe was created. Our language is laced with expressions based upon religious beliefs and concepts, and in many cases there are no alternate ways of expressing a thought without invoking some sort of religious belief.

Religion poisons our language. If we could design and learn a more rational, sensible, language then our intelligence would benefit dramatically.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

64. Of course language influences thinking. That's an intro to semantics course concept.

You do know that g is arguing the opposite of what you are saying. That we cannot have thoughts until we have language. Which, also, an into to semantics course would show is completely wrong.

But I do agree with you that the language we speak influences HOW we think. Not that we need it to think. Loved the movie Arrival for the exploration of these concepts.

[Towlie]

70. Yes, we cannot have thoughts of any clarity or coherence without language. That's what I'm saying.

Arrival made no sense. Why would advanced interstellar-traveling beings not be able to learn and communicate with us in our language, while we'd be able to figure out theirs? Apparently we were superior.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

76. Feels like now we just have a quibble about "clarity" and "coherence"

We can't express the thoughts to other people without the language, so in that case, yes, language gives clarity and coherence to our thoughts. But our thoughts are just fine without language. it's the "I can't come up with the right word" concept.

[guillaumeb]

93. You obviously misunderstood Towlie.

Language is necessary for abstract thought.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

96. Towlie can speak for themself

I'll have the discussion with you elsewhere.

[guillaumeb]

98. And actually did, in #63.

Perhaps you should reread it, especially the part about the necessity of language.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

117. Yes. Towlie and I were having a discussion.

They said things in 63 and I responded and they responded and I responded. Now I'm waiting for them to respond again. My discussion with you is elsewhere.

[guillaumeb]

120. You could simply admit the obvious.

Or, you can respond as you did.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

122. I have responded to you in our discussion.

I am responding to them here in this discussion. You coming in saying "they answered you" when I am fully aware of that and responded to that answer does not 1. help this discussion nor 2. add anything new.

My discussion with you can stay in that subthread. Unless you have something of substance to add to this discussion. In which case, do so and I'll respond to that. So far you have added nothing of substance to this subthread.

[AtheistCrusader]

171. Towlie didn't even understand the movie Arrival.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

77. Arrival (thought I'd keep the two concepts distinct).

I don't think it is that they couldn't understand our language, but they knew that we needed to understand theirs in order to be able to figure out the technology they were giving us. So they let us just figure it out and then left when we did. It's not that we were superior, but that we needed that understanding for things to work.

The short story is really good and very different in a lot of ways. It's hard sci-fi, though, which isn't for everyone.

[Voltaire2]

165. I just watched it last night on Amazon.

It was actually pretty good. The underlying concept was that language shapes the way we think. It clearly does that.

[marylandblue]

147. You miss the point of Arrival

They wanted to teach us their language so we could learn their lessons and learn to cooperate. It's not that they couldn't learn ours.

[Eko]

141. So how did humans come up with speech

if we couldn't think before speech.

[Mariana]

142. Have you ever heard of Helen Keller?

By all accounts, including her own, she thought before she learned language.

[Voltaire2]

144. There are many people on the autism spectrum

Temple Grandin for example, who think primarily through visualization, and have to work at converting those thoughts into verbal representations.

Athletes are trained in visualization techniques in order to improve their abilities.

[Mariana]

145. This assertion that only people who have language

are capable of thought is the most ableist shit I've heard for a long time.

[trotsky]

23. I guess the important thing is that you have chosen definitions that work for you.

That's nice.

They don't apply to those you are trying to define, but then again, you're OK with that. You get to define others' positions, but no one can define yours. I understand.

[Voltaire2]

149. another great episode of hole digging!

[AtheistCrusader]

170. I'm always impressed by the progress he continues to make when he hits bedrock.

[sprinkleeninow]

177. Guillaume, mon ami, I just broke my daisy chain promise to stay outta this

particular place.

You are loved and admired by me.🤗

[guillaumeb]

180. You are forgiven.

The Creator is, as our Muslim brothers and sisters say, all forgiving and all merciful.

[sprinkleeninow]

181. ➕Thank God for His Mercies. They are new every day.➕