Two atheists were talking ...
Posted on: May 8, 2009 - 9:11am
Offline
Two atheists were talking ...
Suppose we have a very, very, very smart atheist. If this atheist were trying to explain something (fundamental to their shared atheism) to a much, much, much less smart atheist wouldn't the lesser of the two be required to accept based on faith the arguments of the genius? (Note: I'm using faith to mean belief with no evidence)
- Login to post comments
It was pointed out right at the beginning by another poster that indeed if the dumb atheist claims to truly be an atheist they are accepting based on faith because the arguments being made by the smart atheist would be nothing more then an argument from authority as perceived by the dumb atheist.
Yet you fail again, there is no evidence that god exists, therefore you there is no faith required on the atheists part, if again you see the definition of faith you see the error you are making, atheists cannot have faith in god. Sheesh is this so hard for you to comprehend? Faith requires to believe that something exists without there being any evidence for it, having no evidence for god, atheists do not have faith in god. You love to play with words....you seem to be like paisley never understanding the definition of a word, yet somehow believing that if you repeat it enough time you can change the definition to suit your needs.
You should reread the OP and then read post #151.
I see now. You're using a different definition of faith. You may well be shifting definitions to fit your needs.
"I'll take your word for it until I can look it up for myself" is radically different from "I will believe in you absolutely because you'll send me to hell if I don't".
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Short of entering the realm of actual organic/physiological deficiency, the lesser intellect is perfectly capable of examining the greater intellect's arguments and come to their own conclusions.
It is not faith nor is it an acceptance of authority until and unless a person chooses to accept a conclusion uncritically. This choice can be made by any level of human intelligence.
Not that this will matter to you, OrdinaryClay. You have a presupposition to defend, and facts are just silly details.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
This is a just a variation of the argument that no such dumb atheists exist, which is just circumventing the question. It is, as you often put it, "moving the goal post". Your simplistic proclamation that intelligence is one dimensional is wrong. Intelligence is in fact a measure of ones ability to grasp an argument as well as the speed one learns and understands.
If any brain can make the correct critical decision about any subject then you redefine critical thinking to be meaningless. (note: if you consider this to be a strawman then you need to apply critical thinking skills to understanding the satement and its context better)
As you seem determined to prove with your posts, not every brain can.
I'm not aware anyone reading your contributions would dare suggest otherwise.
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
To help make it clear for you: Faith is a choice, not a condition.
Now, I'm going to give you the answer you've so deperately wanted to hear:
Yes, there are atheists who are atheists just because they were told to be.
I can hardly wait to see what absurd conclusion you draw from that.
"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray
That's definitely what it looked like at first. Is that where you were going, OC? "There exist atheists such that their beliefs are based on trusting an authority"? I'm sure you could find a few, yeah.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Is that it's 2 atheists here, already from what your saying in the OP, the smart one has his reasons and the dumb one has his (since they are both already atheists), which the smarter one is explaining to the dumber one why the smarter is an atheist, or why there is no god, however if you were going to say that, the smarter atheist told the dumb one not to believe in god and then stated that if the dumb one believed him unconditionally (which can happen) and then became an atheist, then yes that would be a more appropriate way of conveying your idea (someone else can you give a better example my brain is tired this morning), but it still not the same faith type of faith that theists have per se. But 2 atheists, well the dumb one already is an atheist, he doesn't have to believe the smarter one at all, he has his own reasons for it. They can be logical or illogical.
But atheists in the end don't have the same type of faith that theists do when it comes to god, again lets see the difference. Faith as in complete trust in someone like a teacher or doctor is one thing, however that is not the same as faith in believing something to be true with no evidence as in the case for god.
I don't believe because I don't have any evidence that god exists, I don't have faith I don't believe (which is an oxymoron here) there simply is no evidence that god exists, therefore I am at the default position of not believing (which is not, believing I don't believe). However with ZERO evidence to the theist position they have faith that god exist without any evidence.....can you see the difference? are you able to comprehend this yet?
Just more equivocating faith with belief so he can feel more comfortable and say everyone else has to have 'faith' too.
Atheist is a negative definition. Defining something by one particular thing it is not is an extremely crude definition. You're picking at the wrong part of the overall world view which leads to atheism. A lot of atheists will have "faith" in science and reason, that there will always be a way to figure out how something works eventually. It also means that this is not the kind of faith religions propagate. Science as a whole has a gargantual leap over religions in its explanatory power of the world around us, it actually makes predictions that can be verified etc, etc....
I think the whole misunderstanding here is what you and everyone else thinks 'faith' means and what exactly qualifies as the traditional religious context of faith and what qualifies as just faith, as in belief (which is the definition you are using). It's hard to look at these two in anything but an open system. In any closed context they both seem to be the same but as more data comes in they seem to distinguish themselves apart. One is a dogmatic faith in something utterly unprovable and unknowable and one is deduced from repeated observerations.
Sure, in a vacuum where there is no external knowledge to be had the stupid atheist will have to take everything on faith just like the religious person does but the world is not a vacuum and science has met many of the challenges that religion hasn't. Actually, the only thing that you can really get out of the OP's argument is that he might be equivocating really stupid atheists to theists, which I find kinda funny.
From now on when talking about beliefs, simply say beliefs, not faith, since the two mean the exact same thing in your contexts.
You are claiming to have not said something when you did. You stated that intelligence was something. It is more.
You are confused regarding related responses. I think you are in a hurry to respond. I responded to your bald assertion in your last statement.
I clearly stated that the dumb atheist was in fact an atheist. You knew this as is evident from your admission below.
These atheists are atheists based on faith.
Despite it being obvious atheists still fight tooth and nail to admit that any atheist has faith. Instead they go on and on vainly about what atheism isn't. There is a fundamental psychological fragility in the atheist world view.
I already explained the error in your reasoning.
I already explained the definition being used. There is no misunderstanding. There is no magic difference between faith held by an atheist and faith held by a Christian. This is another meme perpetuated by atheists so as to avoid the truth.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
We have another Paisley, ok you can change the defintion of the word to fit your meaning, but it really doesn't work that way. The word is defined as belief in something being true without any evidence, which is not the same as not believing something is true because there is no evidence that it's true.
If I were to tell you that the IPU (invisible Pink Unicorn) exists and I want you to believe it, and you ask for the evidence of the existance of the IPU, to which I respond there is no evidence the IPU cannot be detected by human means, you must have faith in the IPU. If you decide to believe the IPU is real and exists, that's faith in the theistic sense (again we are generalizing here) Now if you were to say that you do not believe in the IPU because there is no evidence for it, that is not faith that there is no IPU. That is the logical conclusion of not having any evidence for the IPU.
Now of course this is generalizing. Because you are generalizing as well that all atheist have faith. That's not true and we both know that. Are there people that have faith sure, are there atheists that have faith, sure depends in what, but in the matter of god, no atheists cannot have faith if there is no evidence for the existance of god(s), it's just a default position of not believing god(s) exist. Now I can have faith in my doctor, as in the sense of complete trust, but again, it's not the same as believing my doctor without evidence.
Quite right. There is a plain ordinary difference of meaning - trust in reason and blind belief. All the concepts have in common is the word "faith".
What have you got against language anyway? Did it hurt you when you were little or something? You have the worst case of verbal amaurosis I have ever witnessed. Coupled with an obvious diarhetic tendency it must be terribly difficult for you.
Try making a sentence regarding "faith" without using either "faith" or "belief" in the sentence. Go on, I dare you! You might actually surprise yourself ...
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
You mean other than the difference where the atheist has faith in things that have been studied and proven and the Christian has faith in an invisble sky daddy who they believe will send them to a really bad place if they don't kiss his ass the right way?
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
"Faith" in the sense of "trust" is of course held by many atheists. You're just equivocating for a reaction now, which is pretty weak.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Your claimed evidence isn't evidence at all. Anybody can write a book and claim it's true. Let's say for the sake of argument that the amount of literature and the age of said literature had any bearing at all on it's value as evidence. If someone stumbled upon a ludicrously large stash of unicorn related scrolls predating the OT would you consider that evidence?
It's already been said here what the problem with this is, so I won't get into it here. What I will do instead is ask the question sans any ambiguity.
Why is intentionally holding to a belief for which there is no evidence a desirable quality?
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
I think the difference here is what justifies a belief, trust, or "faith" in something. By associating traditional faith with a belief founded with no evidence, all we're really doing is demoting its use because of that lack of evidence. The justification seems to be in the social context.
OC is trying to point out, I think, that under certain contexts of everyday life like simply taking advice from someone that you can't immediately verify, is akin to a theist believing in god or what his preacher says. While it is true that both are basing there beliefs (faith) on evidence (as in the physical bible itself or the person giving the advice) not all ideas are equally valid.
All we're really doing is sorting out what we consider to be a valid and invalid ideas. I think it's inescapable that a lot of ideas and words are going to be subjective from this point on. Something like "prayer heals" has shown to be false so it's an invalid idea and anyone who practices it would be considered to be showing "faith". "Prayer heals" is only an invalid idea when it's postulated in the same world where clinical trials exist that have tested it and shown it to be false. Again, something like "God exists" is a subjective and arbitrary statement; there is no amount of evidence that can prove or disprove such an idea so it's thrown into the invalid idea pile.
Notice that conspiracy nuts and the like would also fit under the traditional usage of faith.
I'm kind of leaning toward the idea that faith = belief in any context so OC is only half right. It's just that not all beliefs are valid in the context of cumulative human knowledge. Maybe instead of arguing about or even mentioning the word "faith" on these boards people could just stick to the goal of more directly (dis)proving a claim at hand.
Let me try that again...
Why is intentionally holding to a belief for which there is no supporting evidence, and much evidence to the contrary, a desirable quality?
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
OK, so suppose we get past the mental masturbation you've set up here.
Please state exactly what you mean, not this hypothetical bull shit that can be danced around ad nauseum.
As has been pointed out by others here already, being a theist no longer merely requires faith in something that can't be proved. It requires going into the realm of refusing to believe what can be proved.
There is no god, none. And you know it...
Respectfully,
Lenny
"The righteous rise, With burning eyes, Of hatred and ill-will
Madmen fed on fear and lies, To beat and burn and kill"
Witch Hunt from the album Moving Pictures. Neal Pert, Rush
Okay, it seems clear from previous posts that you intend the dumb atheist to be incapable of ever understanding the smart atheist's arguments enough to justify a belief based on logic/evidence. Of course, this means that unless the dumb atheist is blind/deaf/lacking in sensory input faculties, we can determine that the smart atheist's argument has nothing to do with evidence. (If you're talking about an atheist that is both stupid and desperately lacking in sensory input faculties then this is a very corner-case scenario, and whatever conclusion we reach does not apply to the vast majority of the world. I'll assume this isn't the case you're arguing). So we've ruled out evidence as whatever the smart atheist is presenting, and thus the only thing left is logic.
Now you are positing that the smart atheist has reasoned out some proposed truth T. However, the dumb atheist is incapable of following the smart atheist's reasoning and reaching the same conclusion. The dumb atheist now has a couple of irrational and rational options.
Irrational 1: Despite being unable to follow the smart atheist's logic, the dumb atheist believes T as a matter of faith. This is done without consideration to smart atheist's reputation.
Rational 1: The dumb atheist does not believe the smart atheist's claim, but neither does he believe the claim is false. The dumb atheist realizes that he can't see conclusion T that the smart atheist says is logical, and therefore decides to defer judgment.
Rational 2: Despite being unable to follow the smart atheist's logic, the dumb atheist realizes that the smart atheist is smart. The smart atheist has a reputation for being smart, and past experience tells the dumb atheist that the smart atheist is smart. Moreover, past experience indicates that the smart atheist tends to be honest, and rarely lies to the dumb atheist. Therefore, the dumb atheist believes T based on the following evidence in combination: Smart atheist says T is true, smart atheist is smart, and smart atheist is nearly always honest with me: Therefore I can believe smart atheist.
Rational 3: Identical to Rational 2, except that the dumb atheist disbelieves the smart atheist's claim based on the evidence that, historically, smart atheist is a liar.
The point is that even if dumb atheist cannot understand smart atheist's reasoning, he may be able to obtain evidence in support of smart atheist's smartness and truthfulness, which combined give him reason to believe smart atheist. At this point, he no longer needs faith in smart atheist (as in Irrational 1), because he has evidence that smart atheist is both probably correct and probably truthful. This is enough for the dumb atheist to believe T, though it is by no means a proof of T.
Furthermore, you later suppose that T be crucial to dumb atheist being an atheist, and that if dumb atheist is believing T as a matter of faith then he is no better than the theists. There are a few problems here.
1. You've already called dumb atheist an atheist despite the fact that T is just now being explained to him. If he is only just now hearing about T, and believing T is somehow fundamental to being an atheist, then he must not yet be an atheist. Now we have smart atheist explaining T to dumb non-atheist, and your assertion that dumb non-atheist requires faith to become an atheist. However:
2. In this case, what is T? Let us assume that belief in T is critical to being an atheist. What critical belief must be held to be an atheist? Atheism is defined by not believing in god(s), so it seems that T would become "There is not enough evidence in the existence of god(s) for me to believe in it/them." Note that this is different from "God(s) do(es) not exist." The only thing really needed to support this claim is a lack of evidence in god(s). So if smart atheist is proposing T, then he is proposing a conclusion based on evidence (or rather, a lack thereof). Now we go back to the start of my post. Remember how we concluded that T must not be concerned with evidence? We've reached a contradiction here, and thus our assumption must be false (see proof by contradiction) and either T is NOT critical to being an atheist, or T is based on evidence (and thus the idea that the dumb atheist is incapable of following the argument is ridiculous, as outlined above).
3. Even ignoring #2, and as was pointed out earlier, you have only succeeded in creating a strawman argument using the dumbest of atheists as your strawman! Ignoring 2, one could only conclude that the dumbest of atheists rely on faith, and thus theists are every bit as correct as the dumbest of atheists. This is a poor argument even by strawman arguments' standards.
P.S. You should be using faith to mean "belief with neither logical reasoning nor evidence" at the very least.
Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html
I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.
Silly atheist, tricks are for kids.
You attempt to single out "theological views" over any other views we are endeared to, whether it be humanism, liberalism, scientism, or etc.. When we are "endeared" to a particular view, we are no less prone to bias than others.
It take something far more than sheer intellect to overcome our biases, but the bigger idiot is the supposedly smart atheist who denies he has any, that the theist only holds a view he is endeared to, while the atheist is void of any such views. The secular liberal, holds on to liberal fantasies, no less strident than a believer holds on to his religious fantasies.
Well, I am impressed. You took a four page long thread that was dug up from the past and singled me out when my point was never even taken seriously by the OP. Not that he took anything seriously but I got less play from him than most people.
What mystifies me most is how you conclude from the bit that you read that I might be a liberal. Allow me to introduce myself:
I like big guns.
I think that the USA should deploy the W33, W48 conventional nuclear artillery shells and the W70 and W79 neutron artillery shells on the border with North Korea.
I would like to save the world from itself but I don't see how it is viable to do so by raising taxes to pay for “programs” that are as yet not even defined.
=
Well, I saw thread in the recent post section, and I didn't note how long ago it was created, and I assumed your post was recent when I responded.
Well, you're right I have no clue as to what your political views are, I just used "liberalism" as an example, not as an accusation of you being a liberal.