At 05:40 PM 3/12/00 -0500, you wrote:
> Technotranscendence wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, March 11, 2000 10:19 PM Robert Owen rowen@technologist.com
>> wrote:
[minor snippage]
>> I disagree in this specific case. I define "theist" as "one who
believes in
>> a God or gods" and "atheist" as "one who is not a theist" -- the latter
does
>> not have such beliefs.
>
>For any such positions to be significant, the individual must intentionally
>ascribe these predicates to him/herself. For me to attribute atheism to
>a polynesian who affirmed the efficacy of "mana" but was ignorant of any
>personified gods or goddesses would be ridiculous. To be either a "theist"
>or "atheist" one must understand these concepts and make a knowledgeable
>judgment about which, as far as s/he is concerned, correctly describes
>reality as they understand it. As ridiculous as ascribing "atheism" to an
>infant.
gotta jump in here... why would it be ridiculous to attribute atheism to
the above-referenced polynesian, exactly? i take "atheist" to mean exactly
!(theist); where a "theist" is one who understands the concepts of
"personified gods or goddesses", and makes a (positive) judgement about
their existance.
i thought it was true by definition that everything is, by default,
athiestic.
>> This is a pure belief view of both. By these
>> definitions, no epistemology or argument is implied. One could be an
>> atheist merely because one was never taught about religion. Or one
could be
>> an atheist because one blindly follows on this issue another person who is
>> an atheist. The same could be said of the theist.
>
>As, in the above paragraph, I strongly disagree that one can be an
unconscious
>atheist, because one cannot take any responsibility for this position. The
same
>is true of the mindless compulsion to follow a leader, whether the
ideology is
>atheism or theism. A voluntary and informed consent is required.
i think i missed something. why is voluntary and informed consent required
for something to not be a theist?
>The entire discussion presupposes the persons have at least reached the
>Age of Reason with sufficient self-understanding to assess a statement
>such as "There is a superior power that created you and the universe and
>who knows everything about you at all times and who has decided what
>action you are to take in every situation; denying that you are his subject
>ignoring his plan for you and deliberately violating his laws will result in
>severe punishment. There is nothing you can do to free yourself from this
>situation."
hm. why should we presuppose that the subjects involved have any
self-understanding whatsoever? heh... i've seen this debate quite a few
times on alt.atheism.moderated, and i never understood what the big deal
was... i mean, if i point at something and say "is that a theist?" and we
decide that no, its not, then it is an atheist. in the same way, if i point
at something and ask "is that a luddite?" and we decide that its not, then
it could be called an aluddite, and perhaps described (for example) as
being aludditic [just flows off the tongue... ;) ]. and if something is
incapable of being a luddite, then it could be said to be aludditic, right?
same for theism/atheism, i think... in short, i think atheism describes
lack of belief in gods, not active disbelief in gods.
if looked at that way, atheism is not dogmatic at all, because it implies
no specific belief, or even capability of belief. its just the lack of a
specific belief... would it not be true to call you (for example) an
aunicornist, or an aelvist (thats pretty clumsy), or an (i know, i'm making
assumptions here... ;) anecrophilliac? does that make your position [/me
narrowly avoids making necrophilliac puns] dogmatic?
[much snippage of arelvent ascii]
sayke, v2.3.05
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:04:59 MDT