quadraphonics well the comment was originally made in the context of internet communication even outside of the specifics of internet communication, its not clear how you discern the metaphysical stance of others while bypassing issues of communication. Seems to be more of a case of you projecting your values on others. The problem is that you don't actually see no opinion. All you see is silence (due to an inability to engage in communication). You invent their opinion. actually we are discussing the inclusion of a class of people in a category that has the prerequisite of communication/literacy skills. Its not that they don't exist. Its that they don't exist in a category that has the prerequisite for communication. If I can't understand/you can't communicate that you don't believe in god, how on earth would someone discern that you are an atheist? Telepathy? . On the contrary, an atheist without skills in communication is simply a sub category at best or an abstract concept at worst. Posing a class of atheist that doesn't even have the possibility of venturing into the realm of communication is one thing. Drawing them up as the king pin for all atheist metaphysical claims is something else .... how that lands one in the default position of "atheist" is the problem Its not clear how you pose to interrogate a person that doesn't meet the necessary requirements to engage in communication As mentioned, the statement was originally made in the context of internet communication. Even if you want to extend that to the broader sphere of atheism, there is still a requirement for communication. actually the appearance of issues of religion in all cultures in all times, even those separated from vast geographical/chronological gulfs, tends to draw anthropologists (including atheist ones) that religious notions are somehow embedded into our consciousness (of course the atheist anthropologists have all sorts of wonderful tales to explain this as a non-consequential projection of a higher truth ....) .... but anyway .... it still holds that its not clear why the inability to engage in communication lands one in the default position of atheism. too late when you call them "atheist" you have already jumped the gun hehe as if "denial" has scope for remaining "inactive" And that tends to be how it goes. People form a stance after being presented with a claim . Claiming that persons belong to a stance before the claim is presented is absurd. Actually babies are born without the capability to engage in quite a range of concepts. And (as sci attests) atheism is very much a concept. No less fanciful than the idea that atheism can be maintained without an ideology The more you try to talk about atheism without an ideology, the more you destroy your cause. :shrug: Seems you are confusing value content with cognitive content. You may think that theism has no value. But if you think you share the same cognitive content as a newborn on the subject you are obviously mistaken ... You could say that everyone starts as a blank slate (although a range of sciences, from genetics to anthropology tends to indicate otherwise). Tagging a value (like "atheism") afterwards tends to corrupt the term however. You run into problems when you try to pass off "thinking" as being bereft of any value A cosmos without a creator is not specific? Or is it simply a truth so sublime that it is beyond specifics? While the social ramifications of theism is certainly a popular pastime amongst the whole atheist vs theist debate, theism certainly has a larger umbrella than politics. Basically your argument boils down to "babies aren't born political". Trying to dress the terms "atheist" and "apolitical" as non-different doesn't hold.
On an internet message board? Imagine that. I suppose we can assume plants out of existence as well, since they can never appear in this context. The issue is what the comment was about, not what medium it appeared it. It's simple: those who are not capable of encountering or forming metaphysical stances necessarily don't have any. That means, in particular, that they don't have an affirmative belief in a deity. And that is the definition of a (weak) atheist. And since the ability to engage in communication is - according to you - a prerequisite to holding any of the opinions in question, or not, I can safely assume that none of said opinions are held. What I'm ascribed to them is a lack of opinion. No, I've been very clear in every single one of my replies to you that said prerequisite was an unjustified imposition by you, which I continue to reject. Great. How many times will I have to disclaim interest in said prerequisite before you stop trying to bludgeon me with ti? If you can't understand the premises in question, you can't have an opinion on them, and so you can't be anything other than an atheist. Not being an atheist requires positive affirmation of some theistic belief. If you are incapable of that, for whatever reason, the only possibility that remains is atheism. Literally: "without deity." That is not "contrary" to anything I've said. On the contrary, almost every single one of the millions of blank-slate atheists around the world is guaranteed to venture into the realm of communication, and in fairly short order. Kids grow up, learn to communicate, encounter these ideas, and form convictions. Only the few that die at an early age or have extreme developmental problems can remain blank-slate atheists for life. It's a default position exactly because any other position has the positive requirement of an affirmative belief. No affirmative belief = no theism = (weak) atheist. Is that really so complicated? It's not clear where you get the idea that I propose to do that. Says you. I remain unconvinced. And, anyway, in every single blank-slate atheist, there is a short period between when he developes communicative capacities, and when he encounters these ideas and forms (or not) convictions about them. So almost every single child in human history has enjoyed at least a momentary sojourn as a blank-slate atheist with communicative capacities. Did I not just describe to your my own personal recollection of exactly such a period in my own life? Denial is distinct from simple lack of affirmation. Do you have a response to that, or are you too busy playing the picky editor? What I'm claiming is that people have no stance before a claim is presented. That's how we can know that people without the capacity to have claims presented to them, do not have stances on them, and so must be atheists. Why is this so hard to understand? (Weak) Atheism is not some mirror-image of religion, with a corresponding set of positive claims. It's the absense of such a thing. Thus, the inability to embrace positive claims, necessarily makes you an atheist. No, atheism is a catch-all term that includes certain conceptual claims (strong atheism) as well as the absence of such claims, or even the absence of such concepts at all. And I wouldn't cite SciForums as proof of much of anything. "Maintained?" Sorry, what is my cause again? Cognitive "activity" would have been a better choice of words. But let's just rephrase entirely: I don't spend much more time thinking about the question, than the newborn does, and this is typical of weak atheists. If this stuff struck us as important, we'd go all the way and become strong, ideological atheists. But the vast majority do not do this. But I didn't. And, by the way, you skipped a step in your rhetoric. The phrasing should begin "You could as well say that..." As written, it doesn't even attempt to apply to me. Atheism is not a "value." Riiiiiiight.... By the way, you know that warm, squishy thing that your head keeps running into? It's your large intestine. The issue there is not specificity, but conflation of absence of belief with belief in absence. A common defect, with certain posters here.
Quadraphonic errr .... the comment was about the medium that it appeared in ... but anyhow .... we can extend it to a broader principle if you wish ... the problem is that atheism is a metaphysical stance Its not "no communication = no opinion". Its "no communication = no verifiable opinion". which is an invention, since all you are really working with is an absence of communication (as opposed as an absence of belief in a concept or whatever) Once again, discussing the number of adherents to an ideology while bypassing imperatives of communication poses unique problems The problem is that an atheist has a very specific opinion. It also requires a very specific opinion on how the universe/reality operates, namely in the absence of a controlling entity. The problem is that atheism is a very specific response to a very specific claim. Throwing others on the bandwagon, to whom there is no possibility of even beginning to introduce the claim, what to speak of a rebuttal of it, is ludicrous. You have indicated that an atheist with cognitive content is a sub category though .... yes at which point they begin to form a stance in regards to a claim All you are doing with the use of the term "blank slate atheist" is suggesting that theism is a socially generated term ... aka filling the coffers of atheist ideology. Needless to say, it is a metaphysical stance. If the inability to participate in communication is sufficient to swell the numbers of a cause, I guess even trade unions can call upon the nations infant population to lend popularity to their cause. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! “ If you switch the terms of your tentative argument around, it can be played right back at you. After all, babies aren't born with the affirmative belief that there is no deity governing universal affairs. (IOW even atheism has issues of cognitive content) No cognitive content and no ideology does not equal atheism. You admit that atheism is a very specific perspective on a deity. Without the tools of communication, you cannot verify perspective. fancy that, eh? You have a concept, you explain what it is, and you verify their opinion. the problem is that you didn't come equipped with the ability to communicate your atheism, even after the point of being communicative The only scope for denial being inactive, is if a person is denying nothing. Clearly this is not the case with atheism, since it affirms very clear guidelines about the state of the universe. sure you only run into problems when you claim this is synonymous with atheism Everything ideological, including atheism, has a stance. (weak) atheism is simply an abstraction, since it exists outside of the standard channels that opinion is verified. Its commonly brought in to bolster the opinions of (strong) atheists to suggest they are representing the default position of humanity So chairs are also atheist, since they have an absence of concepts about god? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! you know what happens when "weak" atheists get rudely interrupted atheism without ideology of course sure its all the degree that we value something there's a big difference between cognitive content that backs a value (commonly called politics) and the absence of a value. Once again, you are confusing apolitical with atheism. I'm intrigued. What was on the agenda before the appearance of atheism on a "blank slate atheist"? meh if that's the case, it wouldn't have social ramifications hehe well feel free to offer an example of thinking that is bereft of value. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! hehe so you think a cosmos without a creator/supporter doesn't present a value system? How does it feel to be the hand that feeds you?
The cosmos would not be the "presenter" of the value system, were it deity free. The nature and context of the being involved, the entity in possession of the values and systematization potential together with its universe of relevant circumstances, would be the field of meaning. There are several, varied, even mutually contradictory, atheistic stances. As well as a wide variety of theistic stances, of course. But not the same one, necessarily, as another atheist. The Buddhist, Navajo, Marxist, Paraja, and Scottish Enlightenment atheists vary considerably in their "specific opinions". Your own manner of disbelief in Baal would not be the same as that of an ex-Baalist atheist, eh?
the person taking part in a cosmos free of a deity certainly would present something however. all of which come together quite fluidly in the being of practitioner sure but they all have a common thread and can hence be determined as atheistic stances and all of them are metaphysical. feel free to indicate which ones are reconcilable with the notion of a supreme entity that ultimately controls/maintains/creates everything (as a side point, buddhist, navajo and paraja can easily find their place within henological discourse - or discourse that deals with different gradients of theism) on contrary, its reconcilable to henological discourse (a tool not in the bag of tricks of an atheist)
Or rather, your problem is your insistence on this idea. If you like. I did use the word "ascribe," didn't I? For you, apparently. I'm still not seeing them. Only some of them. Most are characterized by a lack of a specific opinion. No, an absence of such an opinion is also sufficient. No, it's the lack of a very specific (affirmative) response to a very specific claim. Whether that takes the form of some other, contradictory opinion, or simply a shrug, is secondary. At this point, I'm more worried about you insisting that I have a specific belief in the absence of a deity, than how the children are to be accounted. So you agree that, prior to such a time, they did not have any stance? And so could not affirm belief in a deity? And so could not possibly be considered theists? Now if only we had a word that referred to the lack of theism.... It is the lack of certain metaphysical stances. What others - if any - are held in their places, is secondary. That does not constitute a counter-argument to what I have been saying. Atheism requires only the lack of affirmative belief in a deity, not the affirmative belief that there is no deity. There are no affirmative beliefs required for atheism. I'm an atheist, and - like most atheists - don't hold any affirmative belief that there is no deity. Sure it does, by default. No, I am adamant that atheism is the lack of certain very specific perspectives on a deity. Wrong again. You can keep insisting that all atheists are strong atheists all you want, and it's not going to impress me. What you demand atheists do or don't believe has no bearing on anything. You are confusing weak atheism with a special case: blank-slate atheism. Most weak atheists - such as myself - exist inside the standard channels without any problems. And we constitute the majority of atheists - even excluding the children. Now you're confusing strong and weak atheists. It's the weak atheists that (correctly) suggest they represent the default position of humanity. I've yet to hear anyone argue that children are born with an affirmative belief that no deity exists. Sure, if you like. That doesn't make the metaphysical content of a chair interesting. There's no need: your incontinence is providing more examples than I can keep up with. Empowering.
quadraphonics hehe then feel free to explain the atheistic perspective without touching on anything metaphysical I don't see how that offers anything to the case of "no communication = no opinion" Then perhaps you haven't thought about the matter thoroughly enough. Perhaps if you were god-like you could determine the ideological stance of others while being bereft of the necessary tools of communication. nonsense. Even you entertain a very specific world view requirement for a (weak) atheist. sure which boils down to the (specific) "empowering" atheist notion of being the hand that feeds one's self This is distinct from even theism in its most rudimentary forms (like say animism) which can recognize other players. So when contemplating how they fit in the universe, you don't get a specific response from the atheist world view? I'm not sure why that worries you. You certainly don't feel shy about getting specific about atheism. And further more, it becomes even more intriguing when you bolster the number of adherents by citing demographics that aren't even capable of communication. sure including the atheist stance If you're thinking of atheism, you will have to try again, since it incorporates a host of principles that makes theism untenable. (IOW there's a big difference between something that is untenable and something that is absent) Feel free to explain how "being the hand that feeds one's self" doesn't approach any metaphysical issues. On the contrary, the notion of being the hand that feeds one's self is a primary designation of atheist ideology. hehe feel free to explain how a lack of affirmative belief in a deity develops a value system that is distinct from an affirmative disbelief in a deity. The moment you raise the issue of how an atheist believes they exist in relation to their environment is the moment you have beliefs. your value system suggests otherwise duh if it did it wouldn't be capable of critique or exhibit a default consensus to issues such as "being the hand that feeds one's self" etc etc Once again, feel free to offer an example of thinking that doesn't touch on issues of value Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! If you take away the notion of a deity governing universal affairs, you are, by default, left with the proposition of the individual out to make the most the universe (aka the hand that feeds one's self). IOW you have a perspective of the greater environment/universe and how that relates to one's sef. You can pretend to dress this up as something valueless/bereft of ideology, but it is clearly a metaphysical stance. IOW an individual takes a slice of their experience and extrapolates that to form a world view. In short, the notion of an individual who is bereft of any metaphysical underpinnings is an imagination (much to the horror of the Vienna Circle). Perhaps you can argue a case that comprehension of one's environment and faculty of senses develops after a certain age, but declaring these individuals to be on par with atheism is simply an abstraction, since they aren't even in the arena of communication. IOW if an individual can not even begin to comprehend themselves and their environment (much less communicate that comprehension, or lack of it), they are not in a position to be pigeonholed in any metaphysical stance. (Weak) atheism is simply an abstract tool called upon by (strong) atheists to suggest that they are representing the default position of humanity. They frequently call upon it to romantically suggest the joy and pleasure of being innocent and "uncontaminated" of theism .... never mind that its also an age where one is dependent on others to remove the crap from one's pants and face a host of complex issues around 3-D motoring, communication and self efficacy (IOW hardly the best position to begin a metaphysical stance from) lol will the irony never end? Implicit atheism is simply the belief that one can have ideology without value. Funnily enough, you sometimes see theists with a poor fund of knowledge apply the same general principle in the sad attempt to save a doomed argument. “ you can't recognize how this is a metaphysical stance? The idea of tagging metaphysical content to something that can't make the grade of developed consciousness is certainly amusing sorry dude bad choice Your constant critiques of my statements clearly indicate the values present that you have difficulty with try again feel free to offer an example of thinking that is bereft of value Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! “ Empowering, eh? how's that for a value? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Sure, and it's a negative requirement: you specifically must not harbor affirmative belief in a deity. You get many - often mutually-incompatiable - responses from the various atheist worldviews. And that's a big mark against you, in my book. Where I come from, telling other people what they think is considered offensive. Lacks of beliefs don't develop value systems: people do that. And the systems they develop, starting from the same lack of belief, are often distinct from one another, let alone those associated with different sets of beliefs. For example, there's a great deal in the Marxist value system that I don't hold with. And I never suggested that all atheists don't have beliefs. Just that their defining characteristic is the lack of certain very specific beliefs. What affirmative beliefs they may harbor instead, if any, is secondary. Well, obviously. The implication that this somehow commits me to choose an affirmative stance on the existance of invisible entities that can't measurably affect said greater environment/universe is the absurdity you're hung up on. I never claimed that I don't have any metaphysical stances. Only that I lack certain specific ones. And that you can't tell a whole lot about the stances I do hold, from that. Not that you've tried, busy as you've been insisting that I do hold stances which I've just finished telling you that I don't. Exactly. And since atheism is defined by the lack of certain metaphysical stances, the situation is clear. Again, blank-slate atheism is only a small subset of weak atheism. You are communicating with a weak atheist right now. I don't claim to be innocent or uncontaminated: just disinterested.
quadraphonics the problem is that even a negative requirement indicates positive values For instance "I am not wet" suggests that "I am dry" much like "I do not have a deity " suggests "I hold that I (or some extension of that "I" .. eg my family, my country, my people, my species, my planet, etc etc) am fulfilling the metaphysical requirements/values of that entity yes - a variety of ego driven value systems .... much like in theism you get a variety of deity driven value systems probably explains why you have no qualms with pigeon holing large populations of humanity on the same metaphysical platform as yourself ... despite their inability to engage in dialogue. duh and it just happens to be a coincidence that lacks of belief find their example in people! obviously not the notion of being the hand that feeds yourself though, eh? Try again feel free to explain how a lack of affirmative belief in a deity develops a value system that is distinct from an affirmative disbelief in a deity. on the contrary, you get a very clear pattern of "ego in the environment" beliefs (aka "hand that feeds itself") It forces you to accept an affirmative stance on existence, full stop (ie :"enter metaphysics") "atheist" = a very clear metaphysical stance The big hold up so far is your inability to recognize that atheism has metaphysical prerequisites (such a sense of ego and the environment .... something not high on the agenda of developing infants or cutlery and chairs for that matter ...) except of course for the blaring obvious that atheism also has metaphysical requirements .... assuming a person wouldn't be so idiotic to identify chairs and cutlery as atheist blank slate atheism is a term you have concocted for the sake of this argument. You also claim that you share more of a parallel with an implicit atheist than an explicit one ... which is where it tends to indicate you are ignorant of the values you are harbouring.
Sure. But it's not always safe to exclude the middle. For example: Which begs the question: what were these metaphysical requirements to begin with? Is it inconceivable that someone could simply accept that the unknowable is just that? That they might even embrace mystery? If you're asking what an atheist would propose to plug the hole in a theist's mind with, well, there's really no good answer. But that doesn't imply there's a hole in my mind that requires plugging. It's not a pigeonhole: it's a catch-all. If that bothers you, it's exactly because you insist on investing extra meaning in the term. So I can't believe that the universe, and me, both exist, without taking a stand on whether there's an invisible deity animating it? You understand that there are countless metaphysical beliefs without any necessary relationship to any deities, right? Specifically, most of the really common ones, that deal with actual day-to-day physical existence in the observable universe. Only strong atheism imposes those requirements. There is little required, in order to lack an affirmative belief. Indeed. I found it necessary - and convenient - to craft a specific term for the specific sub-category we were discussing, since you persisted in conflating it with the larger category. Why you think this adds up to some indictment of me, remains a mystery.
No, actually. The Piraha stance as reported by its Western witnesses is adamantly and consciously not metaphysical, for example. There is no "common thread" other than not belonging to the theistic group - "atheistic" is a catchall term, like "miscellaneous". Maybe, maybe not. No, they don't "find their place" in the local theological sandbox. They are assigned "their place" in that toyworld by theists, who begin by simply denying any aspects of them that prove resistant to assignation. When you start having to label "gradients of theism" as entities in a "henological discourse", you are embarked on a journey whose destination is the dormitive principle school of analysis and whose traveling companions are all the pinhead angels of a thousand years.
from what I've read about the piraha, they appear to venture into animism (they have "spirits). The Pirahã have no concept of God or religion. They believe in spirits, though these are not the same kinds of spirits in other cultures. These "spirits" can be jaguars, trees, or other visible, tangible things. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirahã_people I wouldn't be surprised if the whole tirade of them being atheistic is simply some joshed up anti-christian (ie theism = christianity) view put together by some one who doesn't even have the basics in comparative religion. .... and actually I made that statement before I checked out the wiki link to the contributing author of the piraha people Influenced by the Pirahã's concept of truth, he slowly lost his Christian faith and became an atheist. He says that he was having serious doubts by 1982, and had lost all faith by 1985 after having spent a year at MIT. He would not tell anyone about his atheism for another 19 years; when he finally did, his marriage ended in divorce and two of his three children broke off all contact.[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Everett Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! the notion of an ideology (or world view that incorporates the self and the environment) existing divorced from all issues of value is certainly an imagination .... If the local theological sandbox includes henological discourse they certainly do .... of course this may not be apparent to western scholars since unless two religions are engaged in killing each other they sometimes find it difficult to ascertain the difference. er ... let's see animism polytheism and monotheism Perhaps you would like to make a start by telling us which ones are atheistic. Bonus points if you can do it without denying things. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! actually its more about category and sub-category ..... and anyone who has actually come within 10ft of henological discourse can see that the view points are anything but dormative (compare the personal and the impersonal schools for instance) .... but if you want to have an eye out for a self referential argument nothing can beat assigning the term "atheist" to entities that are bereft of the basic prerequisites (such as self efficacy, developed awareness of the self and the environment... or even the ability to control basic bodily functions) ... such as coining new born babies atheist.
quadraphonics if you are moist you are still wet In short, issues of self efficacy (or ideas of personal purpose/capability vs the environment or context of self) meanwhile accepting themselves as the hand that feeds themself .... IOW the term "atheist" has inescapable conclusions about self efficacy. Ideas about function of the self are so intrinsic to ideas of the self its less than childish to pretend that a "self" can exist outside of them. (IOW you have a good argument for atheist cutlery and chairs) On the contrary, you insist on reducing the object of the term (ie "people") to the level of cutlery and chairs You can't without taking a stand on your function ... something distinct from say cutlery and chairs sure but all of them call upon the same cards of self and environment. sure once again self and environment self and environment are certainly not unique to strong atheism hehe the notion of ideology without values speaks out glaringly no matter which argument it appears in
Its amazing how theists can talk about atheism, but they can't produce any deities. That's all you have to do theists, one little deity and there wouldn't be any atheists at all.
no more amazing than one can't produce accurate measurements of distance with a thermometer Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! fancy that, eh? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
