Poor Fundies.....Hell is A Literary Construct, Too!

[smax]

how did you manage to go from Atheism to Christianity using "logic"?

It was an existential choice, similar to Kierkegaard. Faith is what you reason from not what you reason to.

I see. I guess I'm trying to figure out exactly what kind of Christian you are.

To be continued....

[The Grand Nudger]

Faith is what you reason from not what you reason to.

A better endorsement of intellectual surrender, of the death of curiosity and self correction..... I could not have imagined.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Faith is what you reason from not what you reason to.

A better endorsement of intellectual surrender, of the death of curiosity and self correction..... I could not have imagined.

The reverse is also true. Disbelief is something you reason from, not something you reason to. Unfortunately I do not believe most atheists extend their beliefs to their logical conclusions. If they did, they would see that, in most cases, it (atheism) reaches a point were it becomes both self-referential and counter-intuitive.

[The Grand Nudger]

Still plying these same tired wares? We seem to have n opportunity every few weeks to remind the apologist that lacking a belief in something and having a belief in something are not diametrically opposed, nor equivalent, propositions.

So, I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with you on that one. For reasons stated at length, repeatedly (which will be restated, at length, repeatedly). I had no belief in gods, long before I could comfortably say that gods were fanciful bullshit.

[Neo-Scholastic]

...lacking a belief in something and having a belief in something are not diametrically opposed, nor equivalent, propositions.

God exists.
God does not exist.
To me those seem pretty opposite each other.

[Cyberman]

God exists.
God does not exist.
To me those seem pretty opposite each other.

Absolutely. Problem is, though, the number of people espousing the first view vastly outweighs those subscribing to the second. Sure they exist but they certainly do not represent the most basic and common atheist position, i.e. lacking belief in the god/s du jour.

Here's a handy little example to illustrate the point:

Unfortunately I do not believe most atheists extend their beliefs to their logical conclusions.

Would you describe this as the lack of belief that most atheists act in that manner, or a positive disbelief that they do not?

After that, minor point but could you please tell me what these beliefs of most atheists might be?

[The Grand Nudger]

God exists.
God does not exist.
To me those seem pretty opposite each other.

Two positive statements that imply a belief or knowledge. Neither of which deals with an absence of belief.

Consider for a moment.
I do not believe that ostriches glow in the dark
Ostriches do not glow in the dark

Though both positions find common ground in an appraisal of reality (and both are accurate) they are not equivalent - and are not "right" for the same reason, or any reason, as stated.


Certainly, one -could- reason from a disbelief, that sort of positive statement, if they so chose, but one does not have to. Keep in mind, you're the one that voluntarily pigeonholed your position. To then draw the curtain over the position of others seems- in the friendliest of interpretations- misinformed, and in the worst - well......downright apologetic and deceitful.

[Neo-Scholastic]

...Would you describe this as the lack of belief that most atheists act in that manner, or a positive disbelief that they do not?...After that, minor point but could you please tell me what these beliefs of most atheists might be?

The nuance of the first part eludes me. As for the second, based on the time I have participated, I have noticed common beliefs among atheist members of AF. Strictly defined, atheism is indeed simply a lack of belief in any god or gods. Yet certain beliefs are so widespread that, despite minor exceptions they are practically inseparable from atheism. Three such ideas are as follows:

All phenomena can be ultimately be reduced to physical processes.

Only empirical observations of natural events and material properties qualify as true knowledge.

Non-physical formal properties such a those of mathematics, language, and propositions are abstract concepts without independent validity.

[Cyberman]

Put in context:

Unfortunately I do not believe most atheists extend their beliefs to their logical conclusions.

Would you describe this as the lack of belief that most atheists act in that manner, or a positive disbelief that they do not?

You said you don't believe most atheists act in the manner you go on to describe. This would suggest that you lack the belief that they would. I was trying to illustrate the difference between that position and holding a positive belief that most atheists would not act in such a way, thus ascribing to you beliefs that you probably do not hold.

As for the rest of your response, what you describe would perhaps more correctly come under the heading of "scepticism", of which atheism is a specialised subset focussing on one subject only. In precisely the same way and for the same reason, it's unfair and unrealistic to label all theists as having the same opinions as Young Earth Creationists, who, while carrying the same basic core beliefs as other theists, also espouse beliefs which are additional to any beliefs regarding gods.