Definition of "Atheism" and "Agnosticism"

JimiTime

I'll drop out of this guys. I simply think that its a bad use of the descriptive noun the way some of you are trying to use the word 'atheism'. I find it bizarre that you are trying to apply some special linguistic treatment of the word, and still scratch my head about it why you want to do it (though that could be fleas). The dictionary hits the nail on the head for me with its definitions. All the rest is the padding which comes from each individual. Like most doctrinal concepts, it becomes fairly meaningless as everyone applies their own meaning, thus I don't assume what someone who says they're an atheist believes or doesn't believe a certain thing. Though Wicknights list of different atheist Denominations (Oh yeah, I went there:)) seems to cover most of the bases, the 'organic atheist' concept is just bad English.

Then again, what would the guy who believes in magic bread, jewish zombies and sky faires know.

JimiTime

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Also, I think it's funny how you're talking about preconceptions that people have about other groups and saying that when someone says they're an atheist you assume very little, while refusing to let go of this preconception that a bunch of atheists are telling you you have.

What preconception is that? I don't like having false pre-conceptions, so I would appreciate knowing what you refer to so I can tend to it.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

What preconception is that? I don't like having false pre-conceptions, so I would appreciate knowing what you refer to so I can tend to it.

Do you accept that an atheist (a "a"-theist) is simply someone who is not a theist, for what ever reason?

Or do you think it means more than that?

Sam Vimes

JimiTime wrote: »

What preconception is that? I don't like having false pre-conceptions, so I would appreciate knowing what you refer to so I can tend to it.

Ummmm, read the thread


I've told you what your preconception is, that you think that not believing in your god cannot be a neutral position and that I have made the decision that you are wrong. You said my point was irrelevant. Now you're deciding to drop out without defending your position but not without putting forward once more the position that everyone here is telling you is a misconception, you are reducing the position held by everyone here to "bad english" so you can keep your preconception of what you think we believe

bnt

pH wrote: »

Have to say I'm with Zillah here, i can't see any practical difference in the 2 statements

I do not believe God exists.
and
I believe God does not exist.

I suppose technically you could argue that the first allows the person the woolly "don't know" position where they neither believe nor disbelieve in God's existence, however for most people, most of the time, the statement "I don't believe God exists" has a very clear and singular meaning, and to attempt to argue there's a massive difference between it and "I believe God does not exist" seems an exercise in pedantry.

I have to bring this back up, since I don't think it has been adequately answered. The difference is the difference between not asserting an opinion (the first option) and asserting an opinion (the second option). The second option is an example of the "proving a negative" fallacy.

Can I prove that God (e.g. the Judeo-Christian one) does not exist, even in theory? No, I can't: to do so would require me to have complete and accurate knowledge of the entire universe, of things seen and unseen. I don't have that knowledge, and I don't expect I ever will.

Can I say that I don't believe in that God? Yes, it's a simple statement of fact. I don't believe in that God, or gods, or even the concept of gods as ever expressed by human beings on this planet.

This is far from pedantry, and goes to the heart of what we know and can know. It also relates to the concept of Agnosticism, which is a belief that we can never find out. (It does not mean "I don't know", a common misconception: in truth nobody knows, though some claim to. :cool:) It's a statement not about what you know, but about what you can know. I don't subscribe to the Agnostic view, but (as others have pointed out) it's quite reasonable to be both Atheist and Agnostic at the same time, without philosophical conflict.

PS: I am only ever going to have an opinion about something that is provable, even if actually proving it is beyond my particular skill set, but an opinion is not a "belief" in the religious sense. I have an opinion about e.g. the Big Bang Theory, but I don't "believe" in the Big Bang Theory. Why not? Well, what are the consequences of my opinion for me? None whatsoever. The Big Bang Theory might be proven totally wrong tomorrow, and my life would not change one bit, though I would be interested in hearing the theory that would replace it. Compare and contrast that with the demands that a religion makes on a person: change what you think, what you do, and who you associate with, based on ... someone else's words?

Dades

I believe God does not exist.

bnt wrote: »

The second option is an example of the "proving a negative" fallacy.

I'm baffled as to how the second option can be seen as "knowing" anything.

I believe God does not exist does NOT mean I know God does not exist.

Why people think otherwise I do not know.

Zombrex

Dades wrote: »

I believe God does not exist does NOT mean I know God does not exist.

But both are assertions about the universe and the way it is, just with different decrees of confidence.

I'm a dye in the wool atheist and I have no freaking idea if God does or does not exist, how can anyone even begin to determine a supernatural being doesn't exist?

Erren Music

JimiTime wrote: »

Thing is, atheism, came from theism, so it can't be neutral.

Theism comes from fiction, then superstition ......

JimiTime

Wicknight wrote: »

Do you accept that an atheist (a "a"-theist) is simply someone who is not a theist, for what ever reason?

Or do you think it means more than that?

Does having a definition of a word and its proper use in the English language mean I have a preconception of a person using that word to describe themselves?

I'll answer it, no. While I have an opinion on what its definition is in a strict sense, this does not impact on my ability to know that someone referring to themselves by such a term infers that they are using it by its proper definition.

I have a fairly strict definition of what a Christian is, but I certainly don't assume that someone saying 'I am a christian', uses this definition. This is exactly why I don't get pre-conceptions when people use such terms.

Sam Vimes

JimiTime wrote: »

Does having a definition of a word and its proper use in the English language mean I have a preconception of a person using that word to describe themselves?

a-theist means someone who lacks theism, that is its proper use. You are using it to mean the opposite of theism. You are using it the way some dictionaries define it but many dictionaries were written by people just like you who like to think of atheism as a belief system and so define atheism in a way that very few if any atheists define it. There are actually a number of atheists writing to the publishers of dictionaries to get them to change their definition to what it actually is.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

I have a fairly strict definition of what a Christian is, but I certainly don't assume that someone saying 'I am a christian', uses this definition. This is exactly why I don't get pre-conceptions when people use such terms.

But you are narrowing the definition to exclude people, such as myself.

Atheist meaning simply someone who isn't a theist encompasses everyone who uses the term, whether it is someone like me or someone proclaiming they know for certain that no gods exist.

Sam Vimes

On a side note, I love these regular thread where a theist drops in and says "no you can't hold this reasonable and logical position, you have to hold this other irrational position that's the polar opposite of mine because then it's easier for me to argue against you and dismiss you!!!"

iUseVi

The 'a' part of a-theism means without. Ie. acardiac mean without a heart, alalia means not having the ability to speak. Atheism means not being theistic, which also covers Jimi's 3rd case whether he likes it or not.

JimiTime

Sam Vimes wrote: »

On a side note, I love these regular thread where a theist drops in and says "no you can't hold this reasonable and logical position, you have to hold this other irrational position that's the polar opposite of mine because then it's easier for me to argue against you and dismiss you!!!"

LOL, I really couldn't give a sh!te how you want to define it. It lends no weight to any arguement I might be having. Its simply an expressing of an opinion about a words definition, strongly, on a slow day in work.

Seeking backslaps from others though reeks of intellectual insecurity. Do you really think there was a need for your rather witless post?

Fighting Irish

waaay too much thinking in this thread, you might as well believe in turning water to wine

Sam Vimes

JimiTime wrote: »

LOL, I really couldn't give a sh!te how you want to define it. It lends no weight to any arguement I might be having. Its simply an expressing of an opinion about a words definition, strongly, on a slow day in work.

Seeking backslaps from others though reeks of intellectual insecurity. Do you really think there was a need for your rather witless post?

Judging by the defensiveness and insulting tone of your post I think something else is reeking around here mate. If you couldn't give a sh!te how atheists define atheism and want to to keep your "proper" definition then feel free not to post in the thread

Dades

Lads, lets not get personal here, eh?

It's Friday, go have a pint.

Genghiz Cohen

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Judging by the defensiveness and insulting tone of your post I think something else is reeking around here mate. If you couldn't give a sh!te how atheists define atheism and want to to keep your "proper" definition then feel free not to post in the thread

JimiTime

iUseVi wrote: »

The 'a' part of a-theism means without. Ie. acardiac mean without a heart, alalia means not having the ability to speak. Atheism means not being theistic, which also covers Jimi's 3rd case whether he likes it or not.

Its communicative intention was and is to convey the idea of the rejection of theism rather than to be ignorant of the concept. Breaking it down into its etymology does not remove what its communicative purpose was\is. Its linguistic intention has always been to communicate a rejection of the standard of theism rather than 'the natural state'. Its certain atheists that are now trying to evolve its meaning to take into account their box within the atheist tree. Why must it be so though?

Dades said it simply earlier.

I don't see some pedantic grammatical nit-picking as reason enough to have to redefine what is in realty a simple term.

Mr Theist, you believe in god(s) - I don't. Now fupp off with your pointless wordplay!

JimiTime

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Judging by the defensiveness and insulting tone of your post I think something else is reeking around here mate. If you couldn't give a sh!te how atheists define atheism and want to to keep your "proper" definition then feel free not to post in the thread

Maybe you should stop your silly whimsical 'I find it funny how theists INSERT JIBE HERE...', if you don't wish to be called up on it. You pulled that sh!te with Jackass all the time too. Whats the feckin point??

iUseVi

JimiTime wrote: »

Its communicative intention was and is to convey the idea of the rejection of theism rather than to be ignorant of the concept. Breaking it down into its etymology does not remove what its communicative purpose was\is. Its linguistic intention has always been to communicate a rejection of the standard of theism rather than 'the natural state'. Its certain atheists that are now trying to evolve its meaning to take into account their box within the atheist tree. Why must it be so though?
[/I]

I know exactly what you mean, I really do. But there is a growing proportion of the population ,people such as Ickle who never rejected belief in an explicit manner.

This growing section of the population has grown up without religion, some might even reach teenage years before they ever go to a church or religious place or they hear religious viewpoints. These people are atheists but they haven't rejected religion but purely never had it.

When you say "linguistic intention" you think it means and what your friends and colleagues use it to mean. But I don't think that works anymore because not everyone starts as religious these days. Its not how I use it, and its not how many others use it.

Sam Vimes

JimiTime wrote: »

Its communicative intention was and is to convey the idea of the rejection of theism rather than to be ignorant of the concept. Breaking it down into its etymology does not remove what its communicative purpose was\is. Its linguistic intention has always been to communicate a rejection of the standard of theism rather than 'the natural state'. Its certain atheists that are now trying to evolve its meaning to take into account their box within the atheist tree. Why must it be so though?

what you're basically saying there is that our definition is correct but people have been strawmanning it for a long time so we should just keep the straw man. The definition of atheism given by our regular theist visitors is invariably an irrational, incoherent, faith based mess so I don't particularly want to use that definition to describe my position, since it's not my position. If you want to keep your understanding of the word you'd probably be better off thinking of us as agnostics since your understanding of agnosticism would be a lot closer to our position than your understanding of atheism

Sam Vimes

JimiTime wrote: »

Maybe you should stop your silly whimsical 'I find it funny how theists INSERT JIBE HERE...', if you don't wish to be called up on it. You pulled that sh!te with Jackass all the time too. Whats the feckin point??

I have no problem with being "pulled up" on anything but what you did was insult me. What I was doing was making a point that every few days a new believer comes in here, tells us we're defining atheism wrong and that we should define it their way. And their way is always as the opposite of theism, another type of faith that's vulnerable to all the same arguments that atheists use against theists. And if you don't want to be called up on that you should either accept that our definition is perfectly valid and is actually closer to the literal meaning of the word than yours or just think of us as agnostics

eoin5

Actually I think I can see Jimis point a bit now.

Just thinking about the yorkie description, if you've never eaten a yorkie you might say that you dont know if you like them or not, but youd be wrong. In fact you know that you currently dont like them as youve never tried one. What you actually mean is that you dont know wether you will like them or not, its a tense error.

So anyways not trying a yorkie = not liking a yorkie as youve never had an opportunity to like one. Can you use the word dislike to describe that position? Heres the first definition of dislike I found:

dis·like (ds-lk)
tr.v. dis·liked, dis·lik·ing, dis·likes
To regard with distaste or aversion.
n.
An attitude or a feeling of distaste or aversion.

An extremely unuseful definition if you want to describe not liking something by default.

A word has its own power in a language and shifts and changes, a bit like how mince pies came to have no mince. To even give the opposite of a yes or no question (as it is in both the yorkie and theism questions) its own word gives it freedom to wander across meanings.

What I'm saying is because the meaning of words cant be controlled and their meanings wander it creates a middle ground for words that might have had none originally.

The solution I propose, now bear with me (O here we go... :rolleyes:), is to scrap the word atheist and just use other negitaves like non-theist or whatever, and when each one looses its meaning we pick a new one, leaving much less room for a middle ground that has no right to exist.

Flamed Diving

I am agnostic, and my personal definition is that one cannot claim to know whether the unknown (or not yet evidentially demonstrated) can exist or not.

Hope that helps.

Sam Vimes

eoin5 wrote: »

What I'm saying is because the meaning of words cant be controlled and their meanings wander it creates a middle ground for words that might have had none originally.

The solution I propose, now bear with me (O here we go... :rolleyes:), is to scrap the word atheist and just use other negitaves like non-theist or whatever, and when each one looses its meaning we pick a new one, leaving much less room for a middle ground that has no right to exist.

We'll end up calling ourselves flippity floppity floops :pac: (if you get the reference)

JimiTime

eoin5 wrote: »

So anyways not trying a yorkie = not liking a yorkie as youve never had an opportunity to like one. Can you use the word dislike to describe that position? Heres the first definition of dislike I found:

dis·like (ds-lk)
tr.v. dis·liked, dis·lik·ing, dis·likes
To regard with distaste or aversion.
n.
An attitude or a feeling of distaste or aversion.

An extremely unuseful definition if you want to describe not liking something by default.

An extremely simple and effective presentation of my rambles. Cheers Eoin.

Genghiz Cohen

JimiTime wrote: »

An extremely simple and effective presentation of my rambles. Cheers Eoin.

Distaste, to not like.
Atasteisim, to not have taste, bland.

ChocolateSauce

Sam Vimes wrote: »

We'll end up calling ourselves flippity floppity floops :pac: (if you get the reference)

I think I know what you are saying, sir.:P

iUseVi

eoin5 wrote: »

So anyways not trying a yorkie = not liking a yorkie as youve never had an opportunity to like one. Can you use the word dislike to describe that position? Heres the first definition of dislike I found:

dis·like (ds-lk)
tr.v. dis·liked, dis·lik·ing, dis·likes
To regard with distaste or aversion.
n.
An attitude or a feeling of distaste or aversion.

An extremely unuseful definition if you want to describe not liking something by default.

One problem though. Nothing personal Jimi, but the yorkie analogy is crap. :P

You can't dislike a yorkie if you've never heard of it, you can't say you like or dislike it since both these states require knowledge of yorkie bars.

However, you can disbelieve in something, such as a god without ever hearing about a god. Until just now I'd never heard of Whappadoodles, which are fairies that live in mobile phone and translate speech into radio signals and vica versa. However I never believed in them, but my default was implicit non-belief, NOT explicit non-belief. Explicit non-belief would require knowledge of Whappadoodles. Implicit belief is a non-sequitur. Therefore I think the default state of someone with no knowledge of a proposition to be non-belief.

Ickle Magoo

JimiTime wrote: »

Its linguistic intention has always been to communicate a rejection of the standard of theism rather than 'the natural state'.

Then I'm confused as to why they would deliberately use a prefix which means without. Why not anti-theist? Or contratheist? Or Countertheist? Detheist? Negtheist? Refuttheist? Oppotheist? Or any number of alternatives that mean actively against or denying theism rather than a choose a word that it's patently obvious - and known to mean - without?

Daftendirekt

Zillah wrote: »

You're making one claim with singular and one claim with plural, so I'm not sure how to respond clearly without simply repeating myself.

Can you explain what exactly you're getting at?

(I know the thread's probably moved on by now, but I missed this.)


Okay, I phrased that badly. I agree with you that the statements I don't believe in X and I don't have belief in X are identical, but I've never seen anyone make a distinction between them.

I have seen a distinction made between the statements I don't believe in X and I believe X doesn't exist. I wondered if this was what you meant to say here.

Personally, I subscribe to the idea that there is a difference between holding an active belief in a negative proposition, and simply lacking belief.

Dades

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Personally, I subscribe to the idea that there is a difference between holding an active belief in a negative proposition, and simply lacking belief.

Don't get that one myself. What's the difference between an active belief and a belief?

Daftendirekt

Dades wrote: »

Don't get that one myself. What's the difference between an active belief and a belief?

Lack of belief.

Let's say I claim I have a pet tiger.

Broadly speaking, there are three main positions you can take:


1. Belief - 'Wow, you have a tiger? That's like, awesome dude.'

2. Lack of belief - 'I can't say for sure if you do or don't have a tiger so I'll suspend my judgement until I see some evidence.' (I realise this is generally called agnosticism.)

3. Disbelief - 'You don't have a tiger. You're talking crap.'


Don't think I can explain it much better than that. Really though, it's just boring ol' semantics.

Dades

Daftendirekt wrote: »

2. Lack of belief - 'I can't say for sure if you do or don't have a tiger so I'll suspend my judgement until I see some evidence.' (I realise this is generally called agnosticism.)

3. Disbelief - 'You don't have a tiger. You're talking crap.'

But everyone has a belief. The guy in scenario (1), in his mind, will know whether he believes there is or isn't a tiger. Suspending judgement is just a public exercise.

iUseVi

Dades wrote: »

But everyone has a belief. The guy in scenario (1), in his mind, will know whether he believes there is or isn't a tiger. Suspending judgement is just a public exercise.

Hmm. Don't agree. I think "I don't know" is a perfectly valid proposition. I don't think that humans must hold only one of two binary positions - I believe or I don't believe. I might say "maybe there there is a tiger". You are talking 1s and 0s I think 0.5 is just as valid and possible for humans to hold in their minds.

Daftendirekt

iUseVi wrote: »

Hmm. Don't agree. I think "I don't know" is a perfectly valid proposition. I don't think that humans must hold only one of two binary positions - I believe or I don't believe. I might say "maybe there there is a tiger". You are talking 1s and 0s I think 0.5 is just as valid and possible for humans to hold in their minds.

(I just realised that 'disbelief' mightn't have been the best word to use in my last post. What I meant by it was 'belief that X is false')


This is what I'm getting at.

To use the tiger example again, anyone who doesn't fall into the category of 'belief' is in the category of 'lack of belief' (IMO anyway), but you can then go one step further and believe the opposite. I guess you could say that the difference between believing the negative proposition and not believing the positive one is that to believe X isn't true, you have to believe the claim is false or the claimant is lying. Hence making it a belief in itself.

Dades wrote:

But everyone has a belief. The guy in scenario (1), in his mind, will know whether he believes there is or isn't a tiger. Suspending judgement is just a public exercise.

Not really. In scenario one, the statement 'You have a tiger' is seen as true. In scenario two, neither 'You have a tiger' or 'You are tigerless' are seen as true, but this doesn't automatically imply that they're seen as false. In scenario three, the statement 'You have no tiger' is seen as true.

iUseVi

Daftendirekt wrote: »

(I just realised that 'disbelief' mightn't have been the best word to use in my last post. What I meant by it was 'belief that X is false')


This is kind of what I'm getting at.

To use the tiger example again, anyone who doesn't fall into the category of 'belief' is in the category of 'lack of belief' (IMO anyway), but you can then go one step further and believe the opposite. I guess you could say that the difference between believing the negative proposition and not believing the positive one is that to believe X isn't true, you have to believe the claim is false or the claimant is lying. Hence making it a belief in itself.

Am I making any sense?

I think you are making sense but I think I still disagree...;)

"Hence making it a belief in itself" Don't get this step, you already said you thought believing the negative and disbelieving the positive are different, they don't share any quality apart from non-belief. I don't see how you jump from a shared non-belief to making it a belief.

Daftendirekt

iUseVi wrote: »

I think you are making sense but I think I still disagree...;)

"Hence making it a belief in itself" Don't get this step, you already said you thought believing the negative and disbelieving the positive are different, they don't share any quality apart from non-belief. I don't see how you jump from a shared non-belief to making it a belief.

Dammit, I thought I could get away with a sneaky edit there.

I clarified my point a little in the last post. I think I was agreeing with you though :pac:.

Erren Music

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Personally, I subscribe to the idea that there is a difference between holding an active belief in a negative proposition,

This is a common issue with most religious - atheist debates, by discussing the bible or JC you are actually giving credence to their nonsense.

Daftendirekt wrote: »

and simply lacking belief.

I have no belief. I cannot understand how someone can put so much faith in nothing.

Daftendirekt

Erren Music wrote: »

This is a common issue with most religious - atheist debates, by discussing the bible or JC you are actually giving credence to their nonsense.

Come again? I don't think anyone was discussing the Bible or JC.

LeSageMignon

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Then I'm confused as to why they would deliberately use a prefix which means without. Why not anti-theist? Or contratheist? Or Countertheist? Detheist? Negtheist? Refuttheist? Oppotheist? Or any number of alternatives that mean actively against or denying theism rather than a choose a word that it's patently obvious - and known to mean - without?

I think without is perfect as it means that I, as an atheist, am without God (belief or interest in) but not against God.

I have no need or want for a God or gods in my life but am not against the idea (i.e. if you want to believe in it I really don't care). Just like the medical term amenorrhoea means the absence of menstrual periods (or absence of menorrhoea) but does not mean that the patient with amenorrhoea is anti-periods or hostile towards those who do menstruate.

At the time that modern English was developing to the standard we now use the norm was to believe in a god and so those who did not were without the belief.

It is only recently, in my opinion, that atheist began to mean a strong feeling that belief in god was dangerous nonsense. A bit like the twisting of the interpretation of feminist, from pro-equality to aggressive anti-men female-supremacy.

philologos

Yeah, the implicit atheism one isn't really valid. Atheos refers to a lack of theism. Christians have theism, so even when they do not believe in other systems that doesn't make them atheist in the slightest.

Also many people I know do differentiate atheism from agnosticism, perhaps it would be prudent to do so here also.

Flamed Diving

It has been, above.

Jakkass wrote: »

Also many people I know do differentiate atheism from agnosticism, perhaps it would be prudent to do so here also.

I am agnostic, and my personal definition is that one cannot claim to know whether the unknown (or not yet evidentially demonstrated) can exist or not.

Hope that helps.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Yeah, the implicit atheism one isn't really valid. Atheos refers to a lack of theism. Christians have theism, so even when they do not believe in other systems that doesn't make them atheist in the slightest.

they do lack belief in a god or gods though

Jakkass wrote: »

Also many people I know do differentiate atheism from agnosticism, perhaps it would be prudent to do so here also.

Oh well if many people you know straw man our position then I suppose we should too. I'm not an agnostic, I'm an atheist or to be precise an agnostic atheist and if people misunderstand the term then I will attempt to correct them

If many people I knew thought that all Christians were creationists would you stop calling yourself a Christian because of their mistake?

eoin5

iUseVi wrote: »

Hmm. Don't agree. I think "I don't know" is a perfectly valid proposition. I don't think that humans must hold only one of two binary positions - I believe or I don't believe.

If you think "I don't know" then you obviously don't believe. Its completely binary. Simples.

iUseVi

eoin5 wrote: »

If you think "I don't know" then you obviously don't believe. Its completely binary. Simples.

Nah don't agree, and I'm not just trying to be contrary. If I don't know then I'm not committing to yes or no. Admittedly this is usually only a momentary state, which collapses into either believe or non-belief.

I dunno how your mind works, but mine is not binary, I often find myself conflicted about something. Now you could say I'm just flip-flopping between the two binary states but I don't think so, I think there is an undecided state in the brain. If you go down to the neuron level then maybe there are groups of neurons that are competing, some believe, some don't. But the entire brain has not collapsed into one or your binary states.

eoin5

iUseVi wrote: »

Nah don't agree, and I'm not just trying to be contrary. If I don't know then I'm not committing to yes or no. Admittedly this is usually only a momentary state, which collapses into either believe or non-belief.

I dunno how your mind works, but mine is not binary, I often find myself conflicted about something. Now you could say I'm just flip-flopping between the two binary states but I don't think so, I think there is an undecided state in the brain. If you go down to the neuron level then maybe there are groups of neurons that are competing, some believe, some don't. But the entire brain has not collapsed into one or your binary states.

I see your point.

One thing that puzzles me lately is that people can believe completely opposite things at the same time. You often hear people say that part of them believes something. I guess things like compartmentaliazation can account for it. I think we need to think about assigning a belief to a person more closely, is it a valid statement to say that so and so is a theist when part of them believes there is no god? Hmmm

Sam Vimes

eoin5 wrote: »

I see your point.

One thing that puzzles me lately is that people can believe completely opposite things at the same timeu

it's called cognitive dissonance. The only way someone cannot see the ludicrousness inherent in the idea of a supposedly moral being whose only criteria for avoiding the punishment he has doomed you to for the crime of being born is to believe an old story about a man who walked on water

iUseVi

eoin5 wrote: »

I see your point.

One thing that puzzles me lately is that people can believe completely opposite things at the same time. You often hear people say that part of them believes something. I guess things like compartmentaliazation can account for it. I think we need to think about assigning a belief to a person more closely, is it a valid statement to say that so and so is a theist when part of them believes there is no god? Hmmm

Indeed. And excuse my breaking it down into brain activity but I think to say that something as complex as the human brain is binary isn't quite the whole picture, although of course its a good approximation for most of the time.