Atheism, theism and jelly beans

Jeeves said:
How could they have? There has to be an ism before it can have ists.
Before the invention of pipes, nobody was a smoker, but nor was anybody a 'non-smoker' - simply because the word would have had no meaning. Before the invention of gods, nobody was a theist or an atheist. It would mean the same as unchomulchingulist -
until somebody popularizes chomulchingulae, you can't identify with either side of the concept.
Click to expand...
did anyone believe in gods before they were invented?
 
DaveC426913 said:
Does a witch doctor have to identify as an herbalist to be labelled an herbalist?
Do ancient Fijians have to identify as cannibals to be cannibalistic?
Click to expand...
Yes: they can't adhere to a doctrine, system, theory or belief without actually knowing what it is.
External labelling is always problematic, and often inaccurate.
 
Slartibartfast said:
did anyone believe in gods before they were invented?
Click to expand...
Somebody had to, or they wouldn't have been invented. We cannot know how many or who believed before they shared their belief with others. But none of them became a theist until there was a god to believe in; nor could any reject a concept/belief they they hadn't heard of.
You can say the majority were probably non-believers, oblivious or indifferent, but nobody was an ist until the ism existed.
The same would hold true for herbalists: somebody might know a lot about plants and use them, but he's not a herbalist until a system of herb-lore become a discipline to study. People might be called cannibals if they habitually eat human flesh, or eat it once where that's considered a crime; neither makes them cannibalists.
 
Jeeves said:
Yes: they can't adhere to a doctrine, system, theory or belief without actually knowing what it is.
External labelling is always problematic, and often inaccurate.
Click to expand...
Neither of those two examples necessarily have anything to do with adhering to a doctrine, system or belief.
 
DaveC426913 said:
Neither of those two examples necessarily have anything to do with adhering to a doctrine, system or belief.
Click to expand...
Herbalism, yes, is a system of knowledge, with rules, theories and a discipline to follow.In order to become a herbalist, you have to know that that's what you're doing.
And that doesn't make everyone else an aherbalist.

Cannibalism, OTH, is an external label, dependent not on the practitioner's belief system, but on the labeller's. The Fijians didn't consider themselves cannibalists; they were animists or transformationists or whatever, and only consumed human flesh as part of that belief system. Catholics are not eucharistists: their symbolic cannibal act is part of their theism.
 
James R said:
Most atheists these days say that they don't believe that God exists.
Click to expand...
That may well be true, but could you link me to some research that shows it.
Religious people, however, are prone to assuming that this means the atheists believe that God doesn't exist.
Click to expand...
I guess ditto for this one. I suppose one could phrase this as 'did you use research approaches to come up with these beliefs or did you use your intuiton based on your experiences?'

In my experience, it is generally hard to get the religious to understand the distinction between not holding a belief and holding the "opposite" belief.
Click to expand...
I find this true for most people period. If you criticize the democrats then you are a republican and vice versa. If you are not an atheist than you are a follower of one of the Abrahamic religions. If you argue that there are epistemological issues that appear if you believe in determinism, they you believe in free will. I find myself encountering this kind of thinking on a wide range of issues. It seems like people think there are two positions on things and that if you believe you are a team player and won't criticize someone on your own team, so if you criticize you must be on the other team.
Consider a jelly-bean religionist who has decided that there's an even number of jelly beans in the jar. Maybe an ancient scripture said that such jars always have an even number of jelly beans. Maybe the religionist feels that he received a special revelation from God that the jar contains an even number of jelly beans. Whatever it may be, we take it as a given that the religionist hasn't actually counted the beans yet, or got the number from somebody else who actually counted the beans, or measured them in some way that would give an empirically reproduceable answer. You get the gist.

Filled with faith that the jar has an even number of beans - for whatever non-empirical reason - the religionist declares "Hallelujah! I believe there's an even number of jelly beans in the jar!" If he feels super confident, he might even go so far as to say "Praise be to God! I just know there's an even number in the jar!"

I look at the jar and say "I don't believe there's an even number of jelly beans in the jar".
Click to expand...
To me in everyday speech that would be an odd formulation if one felt one did not know either way. In fact, later, I would almost take it as trying to set the other person up. I don't think that is the case with saying one is an atheist, so I think it is a poor analogy, at least with that wording.

I get what you are saying, but hanging out with most humans, if they uttered that, I would make the same 'mistake' as the hypothetical theist. I would expect someone who did not feel they knew if there was either an odd or even number of jelly beans to say that. Most of my friends, for example, would likely say 'I don't know either way' 'I can't see how you would know' or ask 'how can you tell?' or any of a number of formulations that imply or state that one does not have a belief about whether they are odd or even. I get that the statement does not necessitate this, but in normal human interactions, I just don't see people saying it that way. It ends up being misleading because it is strange. I would call it coy. I could see answering the question: do you believe there is an even number of jelly beans? with a no. And yes, some jellybear.n evenists will take this to mean you think it's an odd number. Most people, it seems to me, would add a bit more information.

The situation with atheism is a bit more complicated than the jelly bean situation since there are no atheists around jelly beans in the sense that we have a word that is sometimes used to mean that the person lacks a belief and sometimes used, even by people in the category atheists, to mean one believes there is no God. yes, some theists cannot get the idea and yes, some will tell atheists that in fact their not believing is the same as believing there is no God.

But I don't think the jelly bean analogy is a good one as framed.

The religionist says "Woe to the fool unbeliever who says in his heart that there's an odd number of jelly beans in the jar!"
Click to expand...
I am sure there are some who do this, though I am not sure how mocking the entire category is good role modeling when one is concerned about people being binary about an issue.

IOW you are more or less doing the same thing. You are lumping the opposition into one box when in fact there are a variety of categories.


Moreover - and this is important - I'm saying that the religionist has given no good reason for why I - or anybody else - should believe there's an even number of jelly beans in the jar. His appeals to scriptures that talk about even numbers of jelly beans, and his deep inner conviction that the number of beans is even, counts for nothing, because there is no good reason to suppose that either of those things should correlate with the reality of the bean count.
Click to expand...
There would be any number of religious people who would realize that scripture would not convince people. They would suggest participation and engagement in practices and assume that if you formed a belief it might take a long time. This is even more true for many theists outside the Abrahamic religions.

yes, there are some who think that the Bible should strike you like cognitive lightning and you will believe, but there are many who do not think this way. It assumes that they all or most even think that the way to come to beliefs is via reading scripture. Now, of course, there are theist who think that way, but I think most would readily acknowledge that that's not how they came to believe. That it was through participation and practices.

IOW your rendition of religious people is at least as limited as the conception of those theists you are being critical of in the jelly bean analogy.

When an atheist says she doesn't believe in your God, that usually doesn't mean she believes your God doesn't exist.
Click to expand...
I'm a bit skeptical about this. I am not sure, but I would think that a majority of atheists, for example, believe that the Biblical God does not exist. Note two things. I do understand that being an atheist does not entail this and second that here we are talking about a specific version of the deity, The Christian One. This makes it a different issue than believing there is no God in general. Most would likely say they are not claiming they know that version of God does not exist, but they believe it does not. Which is different from saying that they believe there is no God,period. But that's my guess. If you have data showing the percentages of atheists who would weigh in on saying they lack a belief and those who say they believe there is no God, and further have been specific in relation to, for example, The Christian God, or the Islamic God, please link to that data.

Why do I think it is different when a specific version of God is on the table? 1) it involves a larger set of beliefs 2) these beliefs are often contradictory, OT vs. NT God qualities, for example. 3) it is now just one version amongst many competing ones. 4) I have noticed atheists who lack a belief in God in general then can also weigh in on spuecific versions of God in the negative. 4) belief and knowledge are not the same and many atheists think this way also. IOW they do not think saying they believe that Yahweh/impregnator of Mary does not exist, is claiming this is objective knowledge. But they are willing to say their believe that God does not exist. While still merely lacking a belief about God in general.

But if you have statistics on all this let us know. Otherwise it seems like you are not waiting for the data to come in yourself.

Since I imagine a great liklihood you will think I too misundertstood..... I do understand the difference between lacking a belief in X and believing there is no X. My skepticism is coming in around:
1) that there is good data around percentages of atheists who fit the two options and
2) that there is good data around the percentages of atheists who would say they believe there is no God as described in a specific religion (as opposed to say, some kind of universe maker - like one that did not necessary torture Job or send a son to earth by impregnating Mary, etc. I think there are a lot of atheists who lack a belief in God and are precisely as you describe them in relation to God in a general way, but who do believe there is no, for example, Christian God, that is one like the one described in the Bible. And since you refer to 'your God' above, I think it is a different case and needs different data to be looked at to determine if you are correct.
I am also a bit skeptical you waited for the data to come in, even if you should turn out to be correct. I think you followed your intuition on this one. Though that's a guess on my part.
 
Last edited:
In cultures dominated by established Gods, the phenomenon of an atheist becoming theistic by way of personal experience involving one or more Gods is common.

In cultures without Gods that phenomenon is not common, often absent entirely.

It seems unlikely that actual personal experiences of the kind would differ that radically by culture. It seems to me more likely that a common experience of temporary awareness involving the logically necessary "next up" encompassing or "higher" mental functioning
- shorthanded "spiritual", and of course lacking common or daily reference concepts and vocabulary -
would be interpreted by the person according to whatever allusive or conceptual framework was available in the pinch, in the overwhelming immediate moment,

which would vary radically by culture.
wise acre said:
But if you have statistics on all this let us know
Click to expand...
Harper's Magazine has a feature titled "Findings", which comprises a one page list of scientific or otherwise validated observations and discoveries briefly (one short sentence, sometimes two) noted. In a recent issue it reported in one sentence that "two thirds of atheists" convert to belief in a deity via "personal experience with God". I don't know what that means - 2/3 of all atheists on the planet are not converted, so that interpretation is not possible - and can't find the original research (haven't spent the time), but Harper's is reliable in its way, and did provide a reference (currently in my local landfill, or recycled). There's a paper out there with that finding in it, if you have better skills or luck.
 
iceaura said:
In a recent issue it reported in one sentence that "two thirds of atheists" convert to belief in a deity via "personal experience with God".
Click to expand...

I agree, God wouldn't bother in any case so it must be a brain problem with the ones that do convert, you know the 1 or 2..
 
davewhite04 said:
I agree, God wouldn't bother in any case so it must be a brain problem with the ones that do convert, you know the 1 or 2..
Click to expand...
It's far more common than 1 or 2, this:
iceaura said:
a common experience of temporary awareness involving the logically necessary "next up" encompassing or "higher" mental functioning
- shorthanded "spiritual", and of course lacking common or daily reference concepts and vocabulary -
Click to expand...
which is universal, cross cultural, even ritually induced in some traditions.
 
iceaura said:
It's far more common than 1 or 2, this:

which is universal, cross cultural, even ritually induced in some traditions.
Click to expand...
What are you saying? I was serious? 2/3rds of atheists switch to non-atheists? God cares? I don't know the exact numbers, but it isn't 2/3rds.
 
davewhite04 said:
What are you saying? I was serious? 2/3rds of atheists switch to non-atheists? God cares? I don't know the exact numbers, but it isn't 2/3rds.
Click to expand...
I agree. I found the one sentence description in Harper's vague and probably misleading. But I lost the reference (Harper's always provides their source), and haven't been able to track it down via keywords.
 
davewhite04 said:
Give me a clay tablet that proves otherwise, the oldest all mention "God" or gods.

EDIT: Sumerian.
Click to expand...
Then you are limiting yourself to certain kinds of cultures, the ones that settled down to invent a writing system, which is almost always associated with agricultural monotheistic societies. Animism predates these, and is a kind of religion where spirits are said to embody all particular things.
 
iceaura said:
I agree. I found the one sentence description in Harper's vague and probably misleading. But I lost the reference (Harper's always provides their source), and haven't been able to track it down via keywords.
Click to expand...
Probably meant that of those that did convert, 2/3 is via the personal experience route. But if you do track it down, please pass it on. Cheers.
 
DaveC426913 said:
It would be awesome if you provided a short description of what we might find under that link.
For now, I'm just going to assume it's a plug for your online adult diaper subscription service. :D
Click to expand...
Gee Dave, I didn't realize I would need to spell it out for the brain dead - it seems self evident from the snippet of Ice's post. I guess I shouldn't expect much from someone who is busy contemplating poo - I can probably find you a suitable link if you are really in need of those diapers.

Meanwhile, the Science Daily article is to the paper Ice referenced. That should help - or do I need to break it down a little more for you?

:Jesus: - this is why I don't post here anymore...
 
Heh. My bad.

Your quote of iceaura was not visible to me. Without it, your post looked like it had zero context.

Mea Culpa.

:uses jumper cables to reanimate brain:
 
spidergoat said:
Then you are limiting yourself to certain kinds of cultures, the ones that settled down to invent a writing system, which is almost always associated with agricultural monotheistic societies. Animism predates these, and is a kind of religion where spirits are said to embody all particular things.
Click to expand...
Just different parts of the world. Pagans were here before monotheism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top