Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am not sure what you mean by true dichotomies...
My approaches on these issues are certainly very different.
I defend both theism and atheism as quite capable of being rational in the general sense (which includes logical coherence, consistency with the objective scientific evidence, and compatibility with the ideals of a free society), even though particular theists and atheists can be very far from rational in any sense.
However I am quite opposed to the "pro-life" agenda as incompatible with the ideals of a free society. At the very least, as long as rape exists, women MUST have the freedom to take back their body and life without the second rape of either pregnancy or having to prove they were raped.
I view creationism (and intelligent design) as no less that an assault on science by those who do not wish a scientific inquiry or scientific answers regarding the origin of the species but would rather these be answered by authoritarian dictation of their religion.
What I gave are simply examples of how the same tactic can be used in order to illustrate how dishonest it is.
I don't see the commonality between the examples you presented and what is in my view the true dichotomy of atheism/theism. For example, evolution and creationism are not the only choices when one is considering the development of life on Earth. Someone might believe that aliens brought life to Earth as it is, for example. A or B or C .... So the choice between either evolution or creationism is not a true dichotomy.
In my opinion, one either has a belief is God(s) or does not have a belief in God(s), a true dichotomy. A or not A. With this being the case, babies are either theists or atheists, as is everyone else.
Human babies are not capable of having a stance on God-belief. Their cognitive and reasoning abilities are much too premature to form opinions about abstract concepts.
Babies are much the same as animals. Neither theist nor atheist.
I don't see the commonality between the examples you presented and what is in my view the true dichotomy of atheism/theism. For example, evolution and creationism are not the only choices when one is considering the development of life on Earth. Someone might believe that aliens brought life to Earth as it is, for example. A or B or C .... So the choice between either evolution or creationism is not a true dichotomy.
In my opinion, one either has a belief is God(s) or does not have a belief in God(s), a true dichotomy. A or not A. With this being the case, babies are either theists or atheists, as is everyone else.
I don't see the commonality between the examples you presented and what is in my view the true dichotomy of atheism/theism. For example, evolution and creationism are not the only choices when one is considering the development of life on Earth. Someone might believe that aliens brought life to Earth as it is, for example. A or B or C .... So the choice between either evolution or creationism is not a true dichotomy.
In my opinion, one either has a belief is God(s) or does not have a belief in God(s), a true dichotomy. A or not A. With this being the case, babies are either theists or atheists, as is everyone else.
This definition is the issue of dispute.
I refute the claim that atheism is honesty defined as the absence of a belief in God.
A more honest careful definition of atheism is a spectrum of positions on the question of whether God exists.
The point was that we can define other things in the same dishonest way.
We CAN define creationism as a lack in a belief in evolution in which case it becomes a dichotomy in the same way -- no more or less legitimate. And then we would dishonestly classify infants and those believing in aliens as creationists.
I can make the SAME objection with regards to your definition of atheism. There are MANY people who deny that they are either theist or atheist but instead call themselves other things such as agnostic or spiritual or pantheist or Deist.
So, what do you think is the definition of atheism?
A more honest careful definition of atheism is a spectrum of positions on the question of whether God exists.
If you want to nail that spectrum down then I would quote things like the following.
One I have heard quite often is this: "I see no good reason to believe any gods exist"
I am fine any atheist stating their own position, but what I will not credit is an atheist claiming they are the same as an infant with no position on the question at all.
I refute the claim that atheism is honesty defined as the absence of a belief in God.
A more honest careful definition of atheism is a spectrum of positions on the question of whether God exists.
The point was that we can define other things in the same dishonest way.
We CAN define creationism as a lack in a belief in evolution in which case it becomes a dichotomy in the same way -- no more or less legitimate. And then we would dishonestly classify infants and those believing in aliens as creationists.
I can make the SAME objection with regards to your definition of atheism. There are MANY people who deny that they are either theist or atheist but instead call themselves other things such as agnostic or spiritual or pantheist or Deist.
To what spectrum of positions are you referring? In my view, and the most common view, is that the sole position is whether one has a belief in a God(s) or not.
Whether one claims to be an atheist or not isn't relevant. Just as a disbelief in evolution doesn't make one a creationist, regardless of whether you claim it does or not. That would indeed make it dishonest.
Agnosticism doesn't speak to belief, only to knowledge. Pantheism and deism are forms of theism, and spiritual is not definable. The question is, does one have a belief in a God(s)? Yes = theism, no = atheism. If babies have no belief in a God(s), then they are atheists.
A more honest careful definition of atheism is a spectrum of positions on the question of whether God exists.
If you want to nail that spectrum down then I would quote things like the following.
One I have heard quite often is this: "I see no good reason to believe any gods exist"
I am fine any atheist stating their own position, but what I will not credit is an atheist claiming they are the same as an infant with no position on the question at all.
You're speaking to probably, not definitions as all of the options on the lower part of your scale contain the word atheist. Certainly one can hold no belief in a God at 51% and still be considered an atheist. Step 4, as I explain in another thread, is not relative to the rest of the scale because it doesn't address belief. Besides, Dawkins scale did not use the word agnostic, but impartiality as it relates to probability.
Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung: "I do not believe, I know."
De facto theist. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. "I don't know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there."
Leaning towards theism. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. "I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God."
Completely impartial. Exactly 50 per cent. "God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable."
Leaning towards atheism. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. "I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical."
De facto atheist. Very low probability, but short of zero. "I don't know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there."
Strong atheist. "I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung knows there is one."
Agnosticism doesn't speak to belief, only to knowledge. Pantheism and deism are forms of theism, and spiritual is not definable. The question is, does one have a belief in a God(s)? Yes = theism, no = atheism. If babies have no belief in a God(s), then they are atheists.
Yes I know...
Just like these theists who insist you believe in god and are just rebelling, you want ignore what people say about their own beliefs and cram them into to slots of your ideology. Well unlike you I agree with them about what they say concerning what they are. You are just another intolerant ideologue like the fundies pushing your rhetoric and simplistic view of the world on everyone, defining things into and out of existence as you please.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
