'Why humans find it hard to do away with religion'

[Jack Knave]

I think you're conflating 'not liking' tea with 'disliking' tea. You can only dislike tea after you've tried it, but you don't 'like tea' if you've never had it, you don't know.

The group of people who don't like tea includes the people that actively dislike and the people who don't know yet.

Similarly, the people who are atheists include those that are aware of the idea and have rejected it (or remain unconvinced) and those that have no idea of the concept - theism is an active choice, and atheism is the state of not having made that choice.

O.

I think your logic circuit dislikes your argument because you seem to have lost it.

[Jack Knave]

Dear Me,

I think this little debate/discussion has got ahead of itself, those words God and atheism should be left out of the debate, the words I think we should concentrate on are, belief and believe.

Whether it is by evolution or the time spent in the womb until those few minutes after we are born, we are programmed to believe that something bigger than us is looking after us.

Gonnagle.

Some peoples' arguments here would infer that one was able to believe in something without having to know what it was one believed in or that even the subject matter even existed.

[King Oberon]

we are programmed to believe that something bigger than us is looking after us.

Yes, they are called parents 

Unless you mean indoctrinated instead of programmed? (gonna use that word for everything now gonners, being a usual suspect.

[Jack Knave]

Which is why I added capable of belief and why I've argued that babies are not atheist in any sensible fashion.(though see the toddler prayer thread).

The list of things isn't endless. It's limited to the things that other people have belief in, and because of that  you are right. If there was no belief in god, there would be no sensible way of talking about atheists. However, someone who has no belief in gods, doesn't need to have heard of them to be classifiable in that circumstance as atheist.

And this gets back to a point I made earlier, this is your relative external judgement of the situation but for a child, if it could think things through, not not knowing anything about religion and Gods would ask if told, "You are an atheist.", would be "What is an atheist?" How can it be something that it knows nothing about, even in being an atheist? We are talking about the 'properties' of a child, and you are imposing something that isn't there.

[Jack Knave]

I wouldn't put myself in the group 'dislikes tea', but I would be in the group 'doesn't like tea'. It's a subtle difference, but it's important, even more so when you look at unsubstantiable claims like gods.

O.

Explain the difference because it sounds like B.S. to me.

[Nearly Sane]

And this gets back to a point I made earlier, this is your relative external judgement of the situation but for a child, if it could think things through, not not knowing anything about religion and Gods would ask if told, "You are an atheist.", would be "What is an atheist?" How can it be something that it knows nothing about, even in being an atheist? We are talking about the 'properties' of a child, and you are imposing something that isn't there.

Can I suggest you read what I have actually said? Which amongst other things has consistently stated that until a child is capable of belief/disbelief it shouldn't be categorised as anything.  Further I just agreed with you that if there is no actual concept of Boggling, that no one is aBogglist. (I know it seems weird but I was convinced by your argument).


If, however, there is Bogglists, and there are people, old enough to be capable of belief in Bogglism, and they don't know of Bogglism, in the split between those who are Bogglists and not Bogglists, they are aBogglists.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

If, however, there is Bogglists, and there are people, old enough to be capable of belief in Bogglism, and they don't know of Bogglism, in the split between those who are Bogglists and not Bogglists, they are aBogglists.

Unless that is Vlad is in charge of the taxonomy - in which case they are anti-Bogglists.

[Outrider]

Explain the difference because it sounds like B.S. to me.

There is a difference between 'I don't like tea' (I do not subscribe to the position of liking tea) and 'I dislike tea' (I subscribe to the position of disliking tea). One is a positive declaration, the other is the denial of a declaration.

Theists say 'there is a god'. Saying that you are an atheist does not necessarily entail saying 'There is no god', it covers the whole range of people who are not theists, including hypothetical people who have not heard of the notion, or who have no capacity to understand it (say, infants).

O.

[Jack Knave]

Can I suggest you read what I have actually said? Which amongst other things has consistently stated that until a child is capable of belief/disbelief it shouldn't be categorised as anything.  Further I just agreed with you that if there is no actual concept of Boggling, that no one is aBogglist. (I know it seems weird but I was convinced by your argument).


If, however, there is Bogglists, and there are people, old enough to be capable of belief in Bogglism, and they don't know of Bogglism, in the split between those who are Bogglists and not Bogglists, they are aBogglists.

Can't agree with the last bit. Those who have no knowledge of what a boogglist is, or the concepts therein, can not be classed as aboogglists. Aboogglism is not a default position because it is a position that is consciously taken when presented by the evidence and arguments.

[Nearly Sane]

Can't agree with the last bit. Those who have no knowledge of what a boogglist is, or the concepts therein, can not be classed as aboogglists. Aboogglism is not a default position because it is a position that is consciously taken when presented by the evidence and arguments.

this isn't about a default position, it's a simple piece of language, people either are boogglists or they are not. The generic term for those who aren't is aboogglist. They lack a belief in boogglism

[Jack Knave]

There is a difference between 'I don't like tea' (I do not subscribe to the position of liking tea) and 'I dislike tea' (I subscribe to the position of disliking tea). One is a positive declaration, the other is the denial of a declaration.

Theists say 'there is a god'. Saying that you are an atheist does not necessarily entail saying 'There is no god', it covers the whole range of people who are not theists, including hypothetical people who have not heard of the notion, or who have no capacity to understand it (say, infants).

O.

To say 'I don't like tea' and 'I dislike tea' infers that they have tried tea and know what tea is. For someone who has never tasted tea they can't say either of these, only "What is tea?". Your argument falls apart at this distinction because you make no account for those who have never tasted tea, and yet you craftily squeeze those who have no notion of gods into your second section as if this case has been covered in your first, which it hasn't.

[Jack Knave]

this isn't about a default position, it's a simple piece of language, people either are boogglists or they are not. The generic term for those who aren't is aboogglist. They lack a belief in boogglism

Aboogglism is a conscious choice based on the evidence, facts and arguments.

Someone who has no idea of the evidence, facts and arguments can't make that conscious choice.

Atheism is the same it is a conscious choice. It can't be a classification or bin for what doesn't fit theism regardless of its knowledge of the subject.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

NS,

Unless that is Vlad is in charge of the taxonomy - in which case they are anti-Bogglists.

I'm in charge of everything around here and don't you forget it.

[ippy]

Boggleox.

ippy

[Outrider]

To say 'I don't like tea' and 'I dislike tea' infers that they have tried tea and know what tea is.

Whilst there isn't commonly cause to differentiate, the two are not perfect synonyms. You can be in a position where you can't say "I like tea" without having tried it and decided that you dislike. "I dislike tea" is an affirmation of a position; "I don't like tea" is the negation of a position.

For someone who has never tasted tea they can't say either of these, only "What is tea?".

If you ask someone who has never had tea if they like tea they could well say that they don't know, but they could just as accurately (if less helpfully, with common usage) say that they don't like tea - you'd presume they dislike it, but that's not technically what they've said.

Your argument falls apart at this distinction because you make no account for those who have never tasted tea, and yet you craftily squeeze those who have no notion of gods into your second section as if this case has been covered in your first, which it hasn't.

No, the error is yours because you presume atheism to be a confirmed decision, when it is merely the characterisation of all those people who are not theists.

O.
[/quote]

[Jack Knave]

Whilst there isn't commonly cause to differentiate, the two are not perfect synonyms. You can be in a position where you can't say "I like tea" without having tried it and decided that you dislike. "I dislike tea" is an affirmation of a position; "I don't like tea" is the negation of a position

If you ask someone who has never had tea if they like tea they could well say that they don't know, but they could just as accurately (if less helpfully, with common usage) say that they don't like tea - you'd presume they dislike it, but that's not technically what they've said.

No, the error is yours because you presume atheism to be a confirmed decision, when it is merely the characterisation of all those people who are not theists.

I can't believe you are pushing this as usually you come across as intelligent and this is beyond crass.

Going by your assessment of things this would make dogs and chimps atheists as well because you could say they are not theists, but this assessment would be plain stupid.

[Outrider]

I can't believe you are pushing this as usually you come across as intelligent and this is beyond crass.

Going by your assessment of things this would make dogs and chimps atheists as well because you could say they are not theists, but this assessment would be plain stupid.

That's the nature of formal logic - it's not always helpful. Yes, by the definition of 'not accepting the proposition that there is a god' chimps and dogs (and rocks, say) are atheist. If you limit the set to those things capable of understanding the question, do you put babies in or out? They almost certainly aren't capable of understanding, but they have the potential in a way that dogs apparently do not.

O.

[Udayana]

But, unfortunately, this is not a question of formal logic, only of how people understand things in everyday talk.

[Jack Knave]

That's the nature of formal logic - it's not always helpful. Yes, by the definition of 'not accepting the proposition that there is a god' chimps and dogs (and rocks, say) are atheist. If you limit the set to those things capable of understanding the question, do you put babies in or out? They almost certainly aren't capable of understanding, but they have the potential in a way that dogs apparently do not.

O.

Then formal logic has a flaw and that's not logical!!!

[Outrider]

But, unfortunately, this is not a question of formal logic, only of how people understand things in everyday talk.

Some of us, Udayana, do think in fairly formal logic. It has it's drawbacks, and its advantages.

O.

[Outrider]

Then formal logic has a flaw and that's not logical!!!

It doesn't have a flaw, it simply has limitations as any form of communication does.

O.

[Jack Knave]

It doesn't have a flaw, it simply has limitations as any form of communication does.

O.

What's that Skippy?