The Morman hypothetical

[Hopper]

From what I've seen, I think there are some people who, in terms of faith, emotional commitment, and devout conviction believe there is no God, but do not want to say so. For some, the reason they don't want to say so is because they realize that their commitment is one of faith, not reason, and they want to maintain an appearance of objectivity, rationality, and dispassionate analysis, all while avoiding any suggestion that they believe things "on faith."

For some, not skilled at the art of doublethink, to use Orwell's term, this creates some unpleasant cognitive dissonance. But they work at it, and, with the help of newspeak and revisionism, end up with what appears to them to be an ironclad reconciliation of their conflicting attitudes. Then the next step begins--convincing others that they are right.

 

[Hopper]

Speakin just for myself, of course, I prefer the Dawkins type of non-evasive, straight-up, no-nonsense atheism. Dawkins doesn't make any pretenses about his faith, all while maintaining a self-assured conviction that he is 100% rational in reaching his positions. Ask him if he believes there is no God, and his response might well be along these lines:

"Damn right I believe it, because it's indisputably true. You just sit down there, buddy-boy, and listen to me. If you have even an ounce of rationality, sanity, and open-mindedness I will conclusively prove to you that there is no God. All the facts, empirical evidence, logic, and every other tool used to acquire knowledge make it simply indubitable: There is no God!"

 

[One Brow]

I take it you've read most of this thread now, eh, Eric? I've already made a few posts addressed directly to the issue of definitions. You too may want to proselytize Webster's and other dictionary editors and attempt to illuminate them with your superior linguistic knowledge.

The American Heritage Dictionary

a·the·ist (th-st) KEY

NOUN: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

https://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/atheist

Do you really want to duke it out with dueling dictionaries? Then start here: find one that says a person who lacks any belief in any sort of god is an agnostic.

I'll leave that to you, if you think it's a critical semantic issue. I'm more concerned with substance. Along those lines, I must say that I find this collection of statements to be incoherent:

Thanks for clarifying the limits of your coherence. Absent any effort to produce an incoherence, all you are doing is demonstrating your own limitation.

What you insist on calling a "weak atheist" is simply what, for centuries now, has been called an agnostic--which you deny that you are.

Then produce a definition that says so.

But, that aside, you're saying that the issue is NOT undecidable and that you are not undecided, all while sayin there is no good evidence, either way. Well, which is it?

All of the above.

To say the issue is undecidable would be tantamount to saying the supernatural could never impact the natural. I don't see why that limitation must be in place.

I am not undecided. That should be clear.

Positive disproof of any gods would require some way to reliably explore and examine non-natural existence. I am unaware of any such means, and have no reason to say that if something supernatural did exist, we could explore it. So, there is no evidence of disproof, merely an absence of evidence.

 

[Hopper]

I am not undecided. That should be clear.

Well, I'm sorry, it isn't clear to me what you mean here. Do you believe (notice that I didn't ask "can you prove") that there is no God (whatever that is)?

 

[Loki]

Well, I'm sorry, it isn't clear to me what you mean here. Do you believe (notice that I didn't ask "can you prove") that there is no God (whatever that is)?

One Brow is firmly in the Atheist camp. He does not believe there is a God.

 

[Hopper]

With respect to dictionary definitions, the first one I checked was here: https://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist

It says: "a·the·ist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."

This appears to be the "definition" you want to rely on. However this same dictionary goes on to add:

"Can be confused:   agnostic, atheist, deist, theist (see synonym note at this entry ). "

Well, we wouldn't wanna go gittin confused, now would we? So let's take us a little look-see at the "synonym note," waddaya say?:

"—Synonyms
Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine."

Which, of course, is all I've been sayin.

 

[Hopper]

One Brow is firmly in the Atheist camp. He does not believe there is a God.

Have you been schooled by the "talking points" committee, too, Loki?

 

[Darkwing Duck]

.

Amen...not to get all religious here... ;-)

Unless you're talking about a scenario where your children have joined some sort of cult, or you're afraid they're being brainwashed to do material harm to themselves or others, I would hope you'd feel some sort of pride that you raised children who were capable of thinking for themselves and figuring out answers that work best for them. As an adult, you've reached certain "conclusions" or found your "answers" based upon your experiences in life - your children have not shared the identical experiences as you, so you shouldn't really expect them to reach the same conclusions you did.

And I have no problem with children believing in fantastical things. It's when those fantastical things tell you to cut off your family is when I have a problem.

 

[Hopper]

skip

 

[Hopper]

republish: Eric, I will ignore Loki's attempt to restate the question and then answer it for you. It's not a difficult question, a simple "yes" or "no" should be sufficient.

If you say: "I believe there is no God," then I see no incoherency or inconsistency in your current position. You are indeed an atheist. It's just that this whole thing started with your claim, and then your continuing defense of that claim, that atheism entails no beliefs of any kind.

If you say: "All I am saying is that I have no positive belief that there is a God, not that I have any positive belief that there is NOT a God," then you are merely expressing agnosticism, not atheism.

 

[Hopper]

If you want to call "agnosticism" "weak atheism," I have no particular problem with that, so long as it's clear what you mean. When one wants to resort to special, idiosyncratic terminology that is not well-established or generally accepted, that would seemingly be the appropriate course to take, rather than to foment misunderstanding and miscommunication. But, if so, don't just call everything "atheism." Say "weak atheism," when that's what you intend, and "strong atheism" when that's what you intend. At least that way we'll understand each other, ya know?

 

[moevillini]

skip

to my Lou!