[Serious] Atheist Dogma

[The Grand Nudger]

It's downright amazing that Bel, being an atheist, on this board full of atheists....for all this time..is still murky on what atheism does and does not entail.

[The Architect Of Fate]

It's downright amazing that Bel, being an atheist, on this board full of atheists....for all this time..is still murky on what atheism does and does not entail.

Because he is not .

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

I posit that there is a subtle shift in Bell's use of the vernacular stemming from their immersion in a 'Different' culture.

I, for one, say good on Bell for being proficient in their multilinguality!

[The Grand Nudger]

He talks about atheism like a common christian apologist, sure, lol. Such is life under cultural christianity.

[Belacqua]

At work.

Hello Bell!

Uhm.... just a few points/questions.

Always willing to discuss these things! This is fun for me.

I have mental constructs (A 'Belief' if you will.) of a myriad of things. 

When I type the word 'Dragon', then any ond reading said word will have a concept which maps pretty much to the same (Or similar) idea, or concept  or belief of a hexapedal  scaled and flying creature.  (Flames optional).

Are 'Dragons' real? Does the term correspond to something 'Other' in the reality around us?

This is something that has been worked on a lot. 

Way back when, philosophers started wondering about how it is that the stuff "out there" could appear as pictures to us in our brains. Very roughly, they decided that there are two faculties at work. The first was often called "imagination," which had a meaning different from the modern one. It was the faculty that presented us with images of what's "out there." (Kant used the term "imagination" in this way.) The second was "fantasy," which they said was an activity in the mind recombining elements of things that we have taken in through the imagination. 

So when Aquinas said that there's nothing in the mind that isn't first in the senses, he didn't mean that to imagine a dragon you first have to see one. He was aware that we can make up stuff out of elements of things that we have sensed. 

Dragons can be imagined, but are not real. 

So, my 'Non-theism' as a term operates in the same way.

By this do you mean that you take God to be a creation of the mind, in the way that dragons are? That seems like a reasonable conclusion. I can easily imagine that people take elements they have experienced -- authority, goodness, power, and recombine these in the mind into an image of something fictional.

In the way I've been rolling it out on this thread, I'd say that you believe that God is a creation of the mind. Lots of people agree with you.

The other thing is going back to your disagreement with the lizard's mind thing.

Just what would change if, for example, lizards did in fact demonstrate obedience to dietys?

Say someone stumbles across a reptile (The size is optional) which when presented with the iconography any... heck lets expand and say every diety, assummes the appropriate pose performed by said diety's worshippers.

In all other respects. All we can tell is that it is, in fact, 'Just' a lizard (Well... novel species).

How might such a thing effect those who profess 'Belief'?

Granted, I am operating on the assumption that lizards don't have the concept of a deity. If there is evidence that they do, then I have to choose a different example. 

But it seems pretty likely that most animals don't have that concept.

[The Grand Nudger]

A creature with no concept of a thing could not possibly believe in that thing for which they have no concept.

If that thing is a god, then that creature doesn't believe in gods. Could be a lizard, could be a human infant. There's no difference between the two in that regard. If we wanted to be super pedantic, it's helpful to remember that our "ist" terms explicitly refer to people. What makes an infant an atheist while a lizard is not...not the answer to the question of whether either believes in a god.

If a trained lizard operated a cnc router, we still wouldn't call that lizard a machinist.

[Belacqua]

At work.

I posit that there is a subtle shift in Bell's use of the vernacular stemming from their immersion in a 'Different' culture.

I, for one, say good on Bell for being proficient in their multilinguality!

Just curious... What words do you think I'm using oddly?

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

I posit that there is a subtle shift in Bell's use of the vernacular stemming from their immersion in a 'Different' culture.

I, for one, say good on Bell for being proficient in their multilinguality!

Just curious... What words do you think I'm using oddly?

Actually, to expand and clarify, it's not particular words as such. More the 'Tone' of your sentence structure and.... word 'Choice' as you endeavour to bring your meanings across?

I know that's probably not quite helpful. As it doesn't pi down any 'One' thing or example.

It's the closest I can put my thoughts across at this time, sadly.

Cheers.

[Brian37]

At work.

Hello Bell!

Uhm.... just a few points/questions.

Always willing to discuss these things! This is fun for me.

I have mental constructs (A 'Belief' if you will.) of a myriad of things. 

When I type the word 'Dragon', then any ond reading said word will have a concept which maps pretty much to the same (Or similar) idea, or concept  or belief of a hexapedal  scaled and flying creature.  (Flames optional).

Are 'Dragons' real? Does the term correspond to something 'Other' in the reality around us?

This is something that has been worked on a lot. 

Way back when, philosophers started wondering about how it is that the stuff "out there" could appear as pictures to us in our brains. Very roughly, they decided that there are two faculties at work. The first was often called "imagination," which had a meaning different from the modern one. It was the faculty that presented us with images of what's "out there." (Kant used the term "imagination" in this way.) The second was "fantasy," which they said was an activity in the mind recombining elements of things that we have taken in through the imagination. 

So when Aquinas said that there's nothing in the mind that isn't first in the senses, he didn't mean that to imagine a dragon you first have to see one. He was aware that we can make up stuff out of elements of things that we have sensed. 

Dragons can be imagined, but are not real. 

So, my 'Non-theism' as a term operates in the same way.

By this do you mean that you take God to be a creation of the mind, in the way that dragons are? That seems like a reasonable conclusion. I can easily imagine that people take elements they have experienced -- authority, goodness, power, and recombine these in the mind into an image of something fictional.

In the way I've been rolling it out on this thread, I'd say that you believe that God is a creation of the mind. Lots of people agree with you.

The other thing is going back to your disagreement with the lizard's mind thing.

Just what would change if, for example, lizards did in fact demonstrate obedience to dietys?

Say someone stumbles across a reptile (The size is optional) which when presented with the iconography any... heck lets expand and say every diety, assummes the appropriate pose performed by said diety's worshippers.

In all other respects. All we can tell is that it is, in fact, 'Just' a lizard (Well... novel species).

How might such a thing effect those who profess 'Belief'?

Granted, I am operating on the assumption that lizards don't have the concept of a deity. If there is evidence that they do, then I have to choose a different example. 

But it seems pretty likely that most animals don't have that concept.

Outside our human species, sure, I wouldn't put it past other species of being superstitious. Other species certainly don't have human language. 

But I do know that my cat wipes it's paws on the floor just before drinking out of his water bowl. He also wakes me up every morning by jumping on my side in bed and digging into my ear to wake me up to feed him. 

I agree, other species don't have our concepts to a human language level. But other species DO seek patterns, and act on their observations. 

I think it is ignorant to assume humans are the only species that tries to figure things out. Humans are good at being humans, but we are not good at being cockroaches. How is it a cockroach you spot, suddenly knows you are after it and runs away? It isn't praying to cockroach god, but if the metric of "success" was based on numbers, humans should pray to a cockroach god. 

I am being sarcastic of course. But especially now, with this pandemic going on, I do get pissed at humans worldwide whom think we are an apex as a species. We are merely one species among trillions. Humans are actually an invasive species. We growingly conquer and consume, but our Achilles Heel is that we are increasingly becoming a victim of our own success.

[Belacqua]

At work.

Just curious... What words do you think I'm using oddly?

Actually,  to expand and clarify, it's not particular words as such. More the 'Tone' of your sentence structure and.... word 'Choice' as you endeavour to bring your meanings across?

I know that's probably not quite helpful.  As it doesn't pi  down any 'One' thing or example.

It's the closest I can put my thoughts across at this time, sadly.

Cheers.

That's OK. I'm grateful that you are willing to put up with idiosyncrasies.