Redefining Athiesm: You cannot fully accept until you fully understand.

[ydoaPs]

can a painting describe it's painter.

 

Yes. Yes, it can.

[tar]

John Cuthber,

 

The "outside" world exists. We have a model of the whole thing, inside and out, built within the synapses of our brain. An analog representation of that which does actually exist. Its a model of what actually is. One would not expect that there is actually a way to get the sun, at its size "inside" a little skull like mine, yet its in there, in my imagination. I evidently have the ability to make the proper translations of size and position, to reliably portray the way the Sun actually is, based on whatever my brain has "remembered" of the "outside" situation. There is evidence that others have the same capability to absorb and remember, the "outside" world, as you and I have

.

Since I am part of the "outside" world, to another human, and that other human would consider me part of his or her "outside" world, between the two of us, we can determine that there is a mutual, outside world, that we both consider our reality.

My definition of God would be a reference to this common "outside" that we must logically share with every other entity in the universe. This same outside has created us all, and it is what we model on the inside.

 

Regards, TAR2

[ydoaPs]

The "outside" world exists.

 

How do you know?

[tar]

ydoaPs,

 

Same way you do.

 

I think, therefore you are. (a little twist, but appropriate)

 

Regards, TAR2

[iNow]

One would not expect that there is actually a way to get the sun, at its size "inside" a little skull like mine, yet its in there, in my imagination.

 

Here's your primary error, IMO. The sun does NOT exist within your mind. Instead, a concept or model or perceptual map of the sun exists within your mind... not helios himself. The same applies to your argument of god(s). Nobody here is arguing that the "idea of god" or the "concept of god" is nonexistent, so the point is really moot. God exists in the same way as leprechauns or Zeus or Thor... in peoples heads. That doesn't mean Zeus or Thor or leprechauns are real.

 

Don't confuse the map with the territory.

[ydoaPs]

Same way you do.

I don't.

I think, therefore you are. (a little twist, but appropriate)

Descartes was a cheater in several ways. But the one appropriate here is that his radical skepticism wasn't radical enough. Hume took him to task when discussing his skepticism of the self:

All these are different, and distinguishable, and separable from each other, and may be separately considered, and may exist separately, and have no Deed of tiny thing to support their existence. After what manner, therefore, do they belong to self; and how are they connected with it? For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call myself, I always stumble on some particular perception or other, of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never can catch myself at any time without a perception, and never can observe any thing but the perception. When my perceptions are removed for any time, as by sound sleep; so long am I insensible of myself, and may truly be said not to exist. And were all my perceptions removed by death, and coued I neither think, nor feel, nor see, nor love, nor hate after the dissolution of my body, I should be entirely annihilated, nor do I conceive what is farther requisite to make me a perfect non-entity. If any one, upon serious and unprejudiced reflection thinks he has a different notion of himself, I must confess I call reason no longer with him. All I can allow him is, that he may be in the right as well as I, and that we are essentially different in this particular. He may, perhaps, perceive something simple and continued, which he calls himself; though I am certain there is no such principle in me.

[John Cuthber]

 

The 'concept of x' necessarily exists independently of the actuality of 'x'.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

A painter can describe their painting but can a painting describe it's painter.

There's a tree, deep in the jungle, it's an unusual shape.

It exists, but until someone sees what shape it is, the concept of that tree doesn't fully exist.

More importantly, that concept didn't exist until I thought of it.

 

Have you heard of a self portrait?

 

John Cuthber,

 

The "outside" world exists. We have a model of the whole thing, inside and out, built within the synapses of our brain. An analog representation of that which does actually exist. Its a model of what actually is. One would not expect that there is actually a way to get the sun, at its size "inside" a little skull like mine, yet its in there, in my imagination. I evidently have the ability to make the proper translations of size and position, to reliably portray the way the Sun actually is, based on whatever my brain has "remembered" of the "outside" situation. There is evidence that others have the same capability to absorb and remember, the "outside" world, as you and I have

.

Since I am part of the "outside" world, to another human, and that other human would consider me part of his or her "outside" world, between the two of us, we can determine that there is a mutual, outside world, that we both consider our reality.

My definition of God would be a reference to this common "outside" that we must logically share with every other entity in the universe. This same outside has created us all, and it is what we model on the inside.

 

Regards, TAR2

OK, fair enough, if you define God as being "the physical universe" then He exists.

But it's like the people who think that Prince Philip is God: it's such a rare point of view that it's not a lot of use.

It's like saying "My mad uncle Harry thought god was a bottle of chilli sauce: the bottle of sauce exists so god exists."

It's true for a very limited range of definitions of God.

[tar]

ydoaPs,

 

That last sentence, that conclusion of Hume's that you quoted.

 

"He may, perhaps, perceive something simple and continued, which he calls himself; though I am certain there is no such principle in me."

Reminds me of this fellow I used to argue with, who kept promoting that the way to do it right, was to loose your identity. He continually was suggesting that he could accomplish this, and others just did not know how to do it right.

I would constantly remind him, that "he" was the one that he was proud could do this thing. And when he did this thing, it was him(insert name) that was reaching this particular state, not me or the rest of the universe.

 

I don't know if Hume is being sarcastic, or cute, or if he is certain there is no such principle in him.

 

I would only ask what limits he placed on the person that was certain that the simple and continued perception was not a requirement.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Inow,

 

When it comes to objectively determining what is part of the model, and what is part of the modeled and where the two are intertwined, I would have to quess that you and I have some similar capabilities. We probably do it, this sensing and remembering, and thinking thing, in a basically similar fashion.

 

I would not think you have any particular advantage in determining "the thing as it is". Not enough anyway to suggest that I have gotten it wrong. That would imply that you have it right.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Don't we both have the capacity to tell the difference between the map and the territory?

And do either of us have ANY information about the sun that has not modified our map?

 

The territory is represented continually and exactly to the model, and the model is adjusted appropriately.

 

I am not certain that the territory does not do some of our "thinking" for us.

Edited December 12, 2012 by tar

[Villain]

There's a tree, deep in the jungle, it's an unusual shape.

It exists, but until someone sees what shape it is, the concept of that tree doesn't fully exist.

More importantly, that concept didn't exist until I thought of it.

 

 

 

Something can exist without us having knowledge of it's existence, such an existing thing would not be a tree though. We cannot meaningfully describe something that we don't have knowledge of. Even if you describe something that is exactly the same as an existing entity, you have not described that existing entity. The description is only a description of a concept.

[doG]

Let me start of by saying I am new to these forums. I am a freshman Science major at a uni.

My argument is you cannot grasp an understanding of Atheism fully until you explore why you don't believe in a deity. "Becoming scientifically literate."

Anyone disagree?

Yes, I disagree. The term atheist simply means quite literally not-theist, nothing more, nothing less. It is the natural position since people are not born as theists but taught to be theists. They should be the skeptics and ask why they should believe in any deity when there is ZERO to support such a belief or conclusion of deities as the cause of anything.

[tar]

doG,

 

Do you know of a non-theist population of humans, past, present or hypothetical? Was just trying to determine whether you are right in suggesting that atheism is the default position.

 

I was told about God as I grew up. My father was not religious, my mother was. I "figured" out God, and spoke to him/her/it one night when I was about 13. Made it a promise, matter of fact. "Felt" the love of Christ in the air one day in my late teens. Defined God in college, after reading a lot of philosophers and thinkers, as "That which is beyond our understanding". Read a little here and there related to Eastern religions, BECAME an atheist at some point. Had an epiphany on a hilltop in Germany, was still an atheist. Would still consider myself an atheist, but I speak to "God" from time to time, like the time I was in my driveway, thinking about a poster on this forum that had seen a shooting star, asked god to "do it again" if he existed, and immediately saw another one. I was thinking that the poster needed to ask God to do something really odd and specific, and let people know about the request beforehand, for it to be scientifically a mutually understandable, real thing. I spoke to God at this point, because I realized I was shoveling a foot of snow off my driveway in the middle of OCT, in NJ. I looked up in the sky, and said "funny, Guy...funny".

 

Regards, TAR2

[doG]

doG,

 

Do you know of a non-theist population of humans, past, present or hypothetical? Was just trying to determine whether you are right in suggesting that atheism is the default position.

No, I don't know of any.specifically. By definition theism is defined as an affirmative belief that.one or more deities exist. To suggest that anyone is born with such a.belief is as much an illogical hypothesis ad suggesting that people are.born with a belief in tooth fairies, leprechauns or unicorns. Do you think it possible that people are born with such conclusions?

[Moontanman]

doG,

 

Do you know of a non-theist population of humans, past, present or hypothetical? Was just trying to determine whether you are right in suggesting that atheism is the default position.

 

 

 

 

here ya go dude...

 

http://ffrf.org/publications/freethought-today/item/13492-the-pirahae-people-who-define-happiness-without-god

[John Cuthber]

 

Something can exist without us having knowledge of it's existence, such an existing thing would not be a tree though. We cannot meaningfully describe something that we don't have knowledge of. Even if you describe something that is exactly the same as an existing entity, you have not described that existing entity. The description is only a description of a concept.

 

The obvious point to make in respect of the first clause is that of course it's a tree- it grew from an acorn. What do you think it is ? an elephant?

 

At a slightly deeper level you seem to be arguing against yourself here.

 

You say that "Something can exist without us having knowledge of it's existence, such an existing thing would not be a tree though" but you also say that " Even if you describe something that is exactly the same as an existing entity, you have not described that existing entity."

 

So, it's only a tree if we perceive it but, even when we describe it we only describe what we perceive it to be rather that its true self.

 

There's a tree in my garden. When I look at it is it not really a tree, just my perception of it or is it a really tree because I perceive it?

 

When you make up your mind please get back to us.

[tar]

 

 

here ya go dude...

 

http://ffrf.org/publications/freethought-today/item/13492-the-pirahae-people-who-define-happiness-without-god

Moontanman,

 

Ok, a population without a creation myth, but they don't have numbers either. Don't know that I can take them as a default population. And there is a certain bias in description, that one would suspect from a "freedom from religion" proponent.

 

But God they don't got, so point taken, and population cited.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

John Cuthber,

 

In Villian's defense, I would have to say that it is possible for things to exist, as they really are, without us knowing about them. But in your defense, I would agree that what we experience as real, is real. Especially if there is evidence that a thing exists "for" everyone that notices it. Regardless of any questions this might raise in philosophers minds, I think that knowing a thing as it is, is strengthened in its veracity, by the fact that it fits, without prejudice, with another's knowledge of the same reality.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

 

 

Edited December 14, 2012 by tar

[John Cuthber]

What he said was "The 'concept of x' necessarily exists independently of the actuality of 'x'."

So what you are saying in his defence, "it is possible for things to exist, as they really are, without us knowing about them." means that he's wrong.

[Villain]

 

The obvious point to make in respect of the first clause is that of course it's a tree- it grew from an acorn. What do you think it is ? an elephant?

 

At a slightly deeper level you seem to be arguing against yourself here.

 

You say that "Something can exist without us having knowledge of it's existence, such an existing thing would not be a tree though" but you also say that " Even if you describe something that is exactly the same as an existing entity, you have not described that existing entity."

 

So, it's only a tree if we perceive it but, even when we describe it we only describe what we perceive it to be rather that its true self.

 

There's a tree in my garden. When I look at it is it not really a tree, just my perception of it or is it a really tree because I perceive it?

 

When you make up your mind please get back to us.

 

What you have done is take the description of trees and imagined a tree. This tree is by definition a concept of a tree and remains a concept of a tree. At no point in time does our concept of a tree have the value of an existing tree. When we speak of a possibly existing tree, we are not describing a tree that was discovered in 2020 (the point at which we gained knowledge of the tree), we have not travelled back in time and applied the knowledge that we gained in 2020 now. The limitations of the concept remain in place when we ultimately discover the tree in 2020 and a new description is given, but even if it is the same as that of the concept, they have different meaning. That is why I said that the existing thing is not a tree, because as we converse at this present time and with our present knowledge we are not conversing about a tree in reality but merely the concept of a tree. The concept only exists as a concept.

[ydoaPs]

[imatfaal]

Thanks for the taco - it really hit the spot. You see one thing of a greater quality than a perfect taco that exists, is a perfect existing taco appearing in front of me ready to eat!

 

Anselm's argument has always struck me as flawed in exactly the same way - and I might well steal your taco cartoon next time I hear it crop up. I think of it more as a matter of historical interest and a debating point - but then I have never really gone into the details; but it's an argument that enthralled both Descartes and Kant so it must have something.

[Moontanman]

 

Moontanman,

 

Ok, a population without a creation myth, but they don't have numbers either. Don't know that I can take them as a default population. And there is a certain bias in description, that one would suspect from a "freedom from religion" proponent.

 

But God they don't got, so point taken, and population cited.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

They are a well documented group, normally I would agree it is a bit less than objective due to the "freedom from religion" aspect but I don't understand why not having numbers is a problem...

 

Possibly a less biased link...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_people

Edited December 14, 2012 by Moontanman

[tar]

Moontanman,

 

I learned of that population in my linguistics investigations. They are often used...to unseat "improper" generaliztions and assumptions we make about thought and language. That is, we tend to think, that the way we think, IS the default position, and we proceed to conclusions, without allowing for such "other" ways to think. But I think the lack of numbers is important. Numbers give us a "different" way of thinking, than that population. They can no more understand our concept of God, than they can understand our concept of 42. Science would not have achieved, what it achieved, without the concept of 42. This leads me to a hypothesis, that our ability to concieve of numbers, signifies a real difference in how we internalize the world, and remember it, and theorectically manipulate it, and consequently interact with it...sometimes bringing "new" entities into actual existence. Therefore, our ability to put ourselves in the shoes of an imaginary other "might" be different than the ability a member of that population might have. This neither proves or disproves the actual existence of a "greater" consciousness, than a human's, but it certainly is important when discussing the "concept" of God. So I would not take, for the purposes of our discussion, the cited population, as a "default" human population.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

Would you consider the cited population "better", "worse", purer, simpler, plain vanilla human, or what? We, as most of the rest of the human population on Earth, seem to have everything, on the conceptualiztion side, that they have...plus...this number thing.

Edited December 14, 2012 by tar

[Moontanman]

I thought it was interesting that the Pirahã people did see spirits...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_people

 

 

 

According to Everett, the Pirahã have no concept of a supreme spirit or god^[11] and they lost interest in Jesus when they discovered that Everett had never seen him. They require evidence based on personal experience for every claim made. ^[5] However, they do believe in spirits that can sometimes take on the shape of things in the environment. These spirits can be jaguars, trees, or other visible, tangible things including people.^[12] Everett reported one incident where the Pirahã said that “Xigagaí, one of the beings that lives above the clouds, was standing on a beach yelling at us, telling us that he would kill us if we go into the jungle.” Everett and his daughter could see nothing and yet the Pirahã insisted that Xigagaí was still on the beach.^[13]

[tar]

An unseen other.

[iNow]

TAR - Are you suggesting that it was the Piraha people's evolved capacity to rehearse interactions with potential enemies or mates or friends... to imagine in their minds how events would take place with "unseen others" and to mentally choreograph various scenarios (and that those who did tended to be better prepared for new events and stimuli than those that could or did not mentally rehearse interactions with unseen others)... is the same mechanism that could likely have caused them to feel as if they could "see spirits?"

[Moontanman]

I think it should be pointed out that the Pirahã people could count, the missionaries were able to teach a few young children to count. To me this appeared to be a cultural thing. Numbers were simply not part of their culture and counting was actually ridiculed by adults when the children tried to learn.