Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does Atheism = No beliefs?
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 995
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


Message 201 of 414 (774515)
12-18-2015 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 198 by Phat
12-18-2015 11:36 AM


Re: Fig Newton Of Your Imagination
I would tend to think that atheists not only have no belief, they would claim that everyone elses belief is a product of their imagination.
You are conflating a few concepts here that is causing confusion regarding specific ideas.
Atheism is merely the response to a claim: is there a god? It doesn't expand beyond that. But it does not in any way dictate that atheists have 'no belief'.
To draw the point further, there is no concept of a 'god' in the Buddhist faith. So from a classification standpoint, Buddhists are atheists. Yet Buddhists clearly have specific beliefs: reincarnation, karma, various spiritual practices relating to inner peace and the soul, etc.
Yet even though individuals like Tangle and myself are atheists, I don't believe in reincarnation and I am pretty sure Tangle doesn't either. (Correct me if I am wrong)
It makes things easier to understand the demarcation between views and beliefs when when looks at the classification on the other side of the fence: theism.
Theism responds to the claim: is there a god by indicating yes. But theism, in an of itself, is not a belief system. It is merely a viewpoint relating to the question regarding the existence of a deity. Christians are theists. Hindus are theists. (Or polytheists depending on the sect) Muslims are theists. Jews are theists. Yet all these are distinct religions with different beliefs. Additionally, there is the concept of deists. These are also individuals that believe in a higher power or being, but don't ascribe any belief systems associated with that being. Many Agnostics also fall into that camp.
Ultimately, as an atheist, I classify my 'belief' as what is commonly referred to as 'secular humanism'. Although once again, there are deists that also fall into that camp.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 198 by Phat, posted 12-18-2015 11:36 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 995
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


Message 203 of 414 (774521)
12-18-2015 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 202 by deerbreh
12-18-2015 3:02 PM


Disbelief is a belief. Lack of a belief in God is the same as believing there is no God
Sorry, that is false. It takes a tremendous amount of 'belief' to accept a whole myriad of supernatural claims. To equate the two is inaccurate. In essence however, it is actually not exactly 'belief'. It is a view based on evidence. And this ultimately indicates why there is a false equivalency: theists often have to take massive 'leaps of faith' to adhere to their beliefs. Atheists don't have to do anything of the sort. They merely examine the evidence (or lack thereof) and draw a conclusion.
It is akin to how a CSI might look at a crime scene. They may conclude that the evidence indicates the perpetrator of the crime was someone of medium build who used a blunt force instrument to murder the victim. But of someone else comes in and says he thinks the murder was committed by a multi-dimensional demon-like entity from a planet in the Vega system, clearly those two views are not equivalent.
If you are sure there is no god you are an atheist.
Once again, this is incorrect. You are confusing atheism/theism with gnostic/agnostic concepts. Certainty is often not possible to convey because the claim lacks the necessary criteria to perform a test.
For example, if someone claims that there is an invisible dragon in their garage and I respond by indicating that the evidence does not seem to indicate that, is my statement one of certainty? No. And it can't be because the individual making the claim has not provided any evidence for me to disprove. And this is the similar case in the case of gods.
actually don't think anybody is an atheist because no one can be really sure there is no God just as nobody can be really sure there is a God
And again, you are confusing theism/atheism with gnostic/agnostic concepts. But you are actually looking at the overall concept backwards. The burden of proof is on the individual making the claim. Not on the person disproving it. As I alluded to in my invisible dragon example.
Anyone who says they never have any doubts is lying
I would actually agree. But what you will discover is the ones that are claiming absolute certainty generally reside in the theist camp.
We are all agnostics, imo. Some of us are more willing to admit it than others.
And as I indicated: gnostic/agnostic are not mutually exclusive to theist/atheism. You can be a gnostic theist. You can be an agnostic atheist. In the end, it is down to the view and the knowledge surrounding the concept in question. But because fully disproving anything is generally not something that has any veracity in the fields of science or philosophy, it is a pretty useless standard.
Evidence leads us to conclusions. Those conclusions are not in any way statements of absolutely certainty: they are the end result of following the evidence, analyzing the information and formulating a statement based on the information at hand.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 202 by deerbreh, posted 12-18-2015 3:02 PM deerbreh has not replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 995
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


Message 212 of 414 (774608)
12-19-2015 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Tangle
12-19-2015 3:51 PM


We now accept that no-one actually knows whether there's a god or not. RAZD calls himself a deist and an agnostic, ringo says there's no god but isn't an atheist he's agnostic. I say I'm an atheist but I know that the non-existence of god can't be proven so I too am an agnostic.
And this correlates with my previous post regarding the distinction between belief and knowledge.
So if we want to effectively categorize, it would look something like this:
Faith: Gnostic Theist
RAZD: Agnostic Theist/Deist
Ringo: Agnostic Atheist
Tangle: Agnostic Atheist
Diomedes: Agnostic Atheist
In my dealings with Theists and Creationists, I often have been labeled a Darwinist as well. I've had discussions to itemize how theism/atheism classifications work, but in the end, I often just tell them I am a 'realist'. Some take offense to that saying I am being condescending. But in the end, what it means to me is that my viewpoints of the world are dictated by natural and physical laws and the data derived from effective experimentation.
Anything that cross into areas like 'metaphysics' or 'pseudoscience' have no veracity in my worldview since they do not adhere to the scientific method.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Tangle, posted 12-19-2015 3:51 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Tangle, posted 12-19-2015 4:48 PM Diomedes has not replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 995
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


(1)
Message 234 of 414 (774658)
12-20-2015 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by kbertsche
12-20-2015 12:18 AM


For example, I can say that "I do not believe in the tooth fairy." But my belief goes further; I am also convinced that the tooth fairy does not exist. It would be nearly impossible for me "not to believe in the tooth fairy" without also "believing that the tooth fairy does not exist."
But therein lies the problem: can you claim with absolute certainty that the tooth fairy does not exist?
The issue is you have to actually prove a negative. Which, except in very rare cases, is impossible within the confines of philosophical logic and the general scientific method.
But let me extend your example further: suppose one grows up in a culture where there is no concept of a tooth fairy. A child is born, grows up and becomes an adult without having the concept of the tooth fairy ever mentioned to them. No dialog. No coins under their pillows. Nothing.
Now, does that make that individual an 'a-tooth fairy-ist' with a specific belief? Is that person's 'non-belief' in the tooth fairy equivalent to the belief held by a child reared in a culture where the concept of a tooth fairy is utilized?
And that is ultimately how one needs to look at the theism/atheism set of definitions. The only reason I have to use the term atheist is because I live in a culture that makes references and has dialog in relation to god or gods. If I was born and raised in a culture that had no concept of gods, I would still be an atheist. Yet the term would be meaningless since I would have never been exposed to the concept in the first place.
And this is why the belief/dis-belief argument does not hold water. I am not 'dis-believing' because I have a 'belief' in a 'non-belief'. I am merely responding to a claim that someone made.
Going back to your tooth fairy example: do you perform any tenets in your day to day life that correspond with you non-belief in the tooth fairy? Is there any dogma, specific rituals, ceremonies, etc that you go through as part of your non-belief in the tooth fairy? My suspicion would be no.
And that, in a nutshell, is the crux of how most atheists function. Atheism doesn't take any of my time when in comes to my 'belief in my non-belief'.
Now we can get into dialog on what some refer to as positive atheism versus negative atheism. But similar to what Tangle has said, I think this is simply overanalyzing what I consider to be a rather simple concept. I personally don't have any belief or views regarding a deity of any sort. And that lack of belief is not a 'belief' in an of itself, as per the tooth fairy analogy.
To summarize:
Bald is not a hair color
Not collecting stamps is not a hobby
Not believing in bigfoot is not a belief in non-bigfoot

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by kbertsche, posted 12-20-2015 12:18 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by kbertsche, posted 12-20-2015 3:20 PM Diomedes has replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 995
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


(2)
Message 249 of 414 (774681)
12-20-2015 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by kbertsche
12-20-2015 3:20 PM


No, of course not. No one can PROVE the non-existence of the tooth fairy.
Precisely. Because as I stated, it is difficult to nigh impossible to prove a negative. Now we are getting somewhere.
But does this mean that I waffle on the question of the tooth fairy's existence? That I have no belief one way or the other? No.
In actuality, you just did. By stating that no one can prove the non-existence of the tooth fairy, you have, for all intents and purposes, acknowledged that attempting to quantify a non-belief is invalid.
The main issue is that the word 'belief' is being overloaded. And that is precisely what I am attempting to convey.
In order for a belief to exist, as per our dialog and your statements thus far, it needs to be associated with a tangible construct. The tooth fairy. Bigfoot. Angels. Demons. God. Werewolves. Vampires. Pixies. Leprechauns. Dragons. Etc. Etc.
All of the above have one thing in common: they are referencing a tangible 'something', real or perceived, metaphysical or otherwise. A belief must be associated with 'something'.
Now flip that around. What does a non-belief in werewolves look like? Or vampires? Or pixies? Or leprechauns. This is the issue. You are taking the word 'belief' and attempting to ascribe it to a non-entity and then also attempting to equate equivalency in that circumstance.
It is not in any way 'waffling'. It is simply how logical arguments function. The reason that many theists consider it waffling or dodging is they have difficulty perceiving the notion that their view is inaccurate. 'God' in their view, is already proven and that disagreeing with that assertion requires a belief of some sort and evidence brought forth as some kind of counterclaim. But as I indicated, this can be understood more easily if one simply starts attempting similar arguments and instead referencing other mythological or folkloric concept.
Richard Dawkins discusses this in detail and perhaps does a better job of explaining it than I do. But to summarize: you cannot ascribe a belief to a non-belief in something that has not been proven. If I attempted to write a computer 'if' statement to quantify what I just typed, my program would likely throw an error or hang.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by kbertsche, posted 12-20-2015 3:20 PM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by kbertsche, posted 12-21-2015 1:19 AM Diomedes has replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 995
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


(1)
Message 253 of 414 (774707)
12-21-2015 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by kbertsche
12-21-2015 1:19 AM


I dont follow you.
I do not believe in the tooth fairy. Further, I believe that the tooth fairy does not exist. I cannot absolutely prove that the tooth fairy does not exist, but I am convinced of it on the basis of evidence.
I don't see how these statements imply anything about "attempting to quantify a non-belief"?
Read your statement:
quote:
I do not believe in the tooth fairy. Further, I believe that the tooth fairy does not exist.
You have actually stated two things here from a logical perspective:
In the first sentence is you are stating you do not believe in the tooth fairy. In other words, someone has made a claim regarding the existence of the tooth fairy, which you have rejected.
Your second sentence however is the opposite. You state that you believe that the tooth fairy does not exist. You have just stated a belief in a non-belief.
'believe' in 'non-existence of tooth fairy'.
Is this clarifying things a little better?
To compound the problem, your third statement:
quote:
I cannot absolutely prove that the tooth fairy does not exist, but I am convinced of it on the basis of evidence.
This actually contradicts your second statement and is inherently self-contradictory in its own right.
The statement in wholesale is referencing a non-belief, made in the preceding statement. i.e. 'I believe the tooth fairy does not exist'.
As indicated, you are 'believing' in the 'non-existence' of the tooth fairy. You follow that by indicating you cannot 'absolutely prove' in the non-existence of the tooth fairy, but you are convinced of it based on the 'evidence'.
The leading portion of the paragraph is the correct assertion: i.e. you reject the claim of the tooth fairy. But the remaining portions reverse the logic of your view from a 'dis-belief' in a claim to a 'belief' in a 'non-belief'; or rather, the 'non-existence' of a unproven entity.
I don't think this is necessarily true. The word "believe" is commonly used in a number of different ways. The phrase "I do not believe in the tooth fairy" is associated with a "tangible construct", as you say. But the phrase "I believe that the tooth fairy does not exist" is a truth-claim about an alleged fact. I don't see why such an alleged fact must be associated with a "tangible construct". We can believe facts about intangible concepts as well as tangible objects, can't we?
Part of the issue is the usage of the word 'believe'. As I mentioned earlier, it is being somewhat overloaded. Additionally, the notion of 'belief' is commonly attributed to discussions regarding more mythological or folklore based claims. However, in our common vernacular, it is used in scenarios where it is not very applicable.
What actually works more effectively is the usage of a different word. Consider the following:
"I am confident that a god exists."
A positive affirmation of a specific claim.
"I am not confident that a god exists."
A rejection of a specific claim.
Now try the reverse:
"I am confident that a god does not exist."
A positive affirmation to a negative claim. i.e., trying to prove a negative.
The main conclusion to draw is that deductive logical arguments are meant to function in reference to a specific premise. And that validation of that premise leads to a specific conclusion. In order for that to function, the premise must be something that is a tangible from which one can conduct further testing in order to perform validity.
If the premise is referencing a 'non-something'; i.e. the validation of the non-existence of something, the mechanism breaks down.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by kbertsche, posted 12-21-2015 1:19 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by kbertsche, posted 12-21-2015 1:50 PM Diomedes has replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 995
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


Message 261 of 414 (774766)
12-22-2015 10:51 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by kbertsche
12-21-2015 1:50 PM


I meant exactly what I said, that "I believe that the tooth fairy does not exist." This is a truth-claim, a positive belief that an alleged fact is true.
However, the point is the claim is meaningless since it requires one proving a negative. Which you yourself stated:
quote:
I cannot absolutely prove that the tooth fairy does not exist
In actuality, you cannot prove it in any sense. There is no test, experiment or otherwise you could perform to prove the non-existence of something.
I think that part of the semantic problem here is that many atheists want to overly restrict the meaning of the word "believe", restricting it only to instances of "blind faith" where there is no evidence in the belief's favor. But the word "believe" in normal English usage is not nearly so specific or restrictive. You may call this normal usage "overloaded", but it is in fact the normal, accepted usage of the word in the English language.
Granted, words 'can' be used in the common vernacular. However, it does not mean they are effective in conveying meaning.
Take the word 'faith' for example. It's definition is:
1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
2. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
Now, if I use the following sentence:
'I have faith that my car will start when I turn the key.'
Looking back at the definition, bullet 2 does not apply. Bullet 1 is more applicable. But as the definition states, it is indicating 'complete trust or confidence'. So it is basically indicating full assuredness that the car will start.
Yet as we all now, that is no way guaranteed. The car's battery may be dead. Perhaps the gas leaked out. Maybe something has gone wrong with the internal mechanics of the motor.
A more applicable sentence would be:
'I am fairly certain my car will start when I turn the key.'
This conveys the notion that based on previous experience and a working knowledge of the car's service history, one can surmise that it will start, but also acknowledging that it is by no means certain.
But let me take a step back since we are going off on tangents regarding semantics, as you indicated.
The original discussion point was that you were indicating that atheism is implying a positive belief in a negative. i.e. I believe that no god exists. And we also indicated that there is an equivalency between those that believe god exists versus those that don't.
Let me expand on the idea of classification for a moment.
Consider someone who is a theist. That, in and of itself, does not yield information regarding that person's religious affiliation.
So if one was to ask, answers might be:
'I am a Christian.'
'I am a Muslim.'
'I am a Jew.'
That would provide context regarding that individuals belief and their religious affiliation.
Now, would the following work?
'I am a non-Christian.'
'I am a non-Muslim.'
'I am a non-Jew.'
Technically, there is nothing wrong with those statements. But what are they really conveying? Someone telling you they are a non-Christian does not really yield a lot of information since it only eliminates one option from a whole field of options.
In the same sense, when someone says: 'I believe in the non-existence of god.' What precisely is that implying? They believe in the non-existence of something? And beyond that, what information is that yielding regarding their actual beliefs if any?
As I indicated earlier, Buddhists have no concept of a god in their religion. They are, for all intents and purposes, atheists. And there are other religions that function similarly. Also, we haven't even gotten into polytheism which complicates the matter even more.
One of the easiest ways to perhaps finally understand this concept is to look at our legal system. We have the concept of innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way around. And this was done for a variety of reasons. But ultimately, it makes the most sense from a burden of proof perspective.
If someone is charged with a crime, they go to court, and the system then tries to prove their guilt. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defense's ONLY role is to provide reasonable doubt. That assumption is made that the individual is innocent and that the guilt must be proven.
In the same way, when one looks at the god argument, the burden of proof is on the individual making the claim. So theists have the burden of proof on their side. All the atheist needs to do is provide reasonable doubt. This clearly shows that there is no equivalency between the two. Especially in the case of the god argument, since it requires extraordinary evidence.
So to summarize: by attempting to state something like 'I believe in the non-existence of god', the burden of proof shifts. It now goes into the realm of attempting to prove a negative. Which, as we I think all agree, is mostly impossible.
That is the best I can do from an explanation perspective. Perhaps one of the other posters on the forum can take it from here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by kbertsche, posted 12-21-2015 1:50 PM kbertsche has not replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 995
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


(3)
Message 286 of 414 (786157)
06-17-2016 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by Hawkins
06-17-2016 1:52 PM


All religions (including atheism) branch out from these 2 camps
Atheism is not a religion. It is a specific response to a claim: is there a god. The corollary to atheism is theism. And theism, in and of itself, is not a religion. It is also a response to the same claim.
Ironically, there is no evidence showing that life discontinues
You have it backwards. There is tons of evidence that shows life discontinues. i.e., people, animals, plants die. There is, however, no evidence of anything persisting post-death.
Camp 1) however, as influenced (subconsciously) by the "life discontinues" faith fallaciously conclude that they should stay until more evidence showing that it's not a hoax.
Once again, you are attempting to shift the burden of proof. There is no 'life discontinues faith'. Atheists do not absolutely make any statements about life after death. Without any evidence to the contrary, they just conclude that there is likely nothing after death. All evidence points to this natural life being the only one that exists.
Atheism is such a religion with a large group of humans sharing a common belief.
Once again, atheism is not a religion. I can actually easily prove that:
Buddhists have no concept of a personal god in their belief system. Yet they do believe in the concept of reincarnation. So they are technically 'atheists'. Yet they are atheists that have a belief in life after death.
To reiterate, atheism is not a belief system. It is merely a response to a claim. In the same way that theism alone is also not a belief system. It is also a response to a claim. What you are attempting to do is apply the same 'faith based' conditions that exist in religious circles into the atheist view. Which does not make sense as alluded to in the previous explanations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Hawkins, posted 06-17-2016 1:52 PM Hawkins has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Phat, posted 06-18-2016 3:08 PM Diomedes has not replied
 Message 295 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-19-2016 12:21 PM Diomedes has not replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 995
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


Message 306 of 414 (786384)
06-21-2016 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 300 by New Cat's Eye
06-20-2016 6:28 PM


A person could come to the question of gods existing on their own, and then later reject the idea and go on to proclaim that they don't.
But in this circumstance, the logic stands. It is akin to someone having an idea, attempting to verify the veracity of that idea, realizing that the idea does not hold water, and then moving on to the next idea.
For example, if I have an idea of planting a tree in my backyard. I go to the backyard, perform measurements, do an assessment and then realize that the tree won't fit or its roots would undermine the other plants in my backyard. So I decide against that idea. Have I rejected the idea of planting a tree or have I accepted in the positive that I now have a non-existent tree in my backyard?
And if an atheist could never consider a god without another person claiming it, then the first theists could have never come about.
Theists came about as humans became self aware and began to hypothesize about their surroundings and how nature functioned. They originally began to consider concepts like 'spirits' that manifested in things like trees, rivers, etc. It was their way of describing the behavior of certain things in nature that they couldn't otherwise quantify because they lacked the baseline understanding of how things work. From there, the concepts of 'spirits' began to transform into ideas regarding pixies, forest folk, and eventually they started to anthropomorphize these things as 'gods'. The end result over thousands of years was a myriad of religious beliefs.
But I can guarantee you that as some of these ideas were being posited, there were individuals in that time frame that didn't believe in spirits, pixies, etc. The rejection of claims requires the claim to exist. And as such, yes, the concept of atheism merely only being a response to a claim is exactly accurate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-20-2016 6:28 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-21-2016 2:11 PM Diomedes has replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 995
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


(1)
Message 318 of 414 (786470)
06-22-2016 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 314 by New Cat's Eye
06-21-2016 2:11 PM


You, too, omitted the part where you go on to proclaim that the idea is wrong. Funny how you guys just remove that part instead of addressing it.
How did I omit that the idea was wrong? If I decided against the idea due to specific factors that I cited, does that not, by inference, imply that the idea was wrong or a bad one?
Are you no longer an atheist if you proselytize?
Am I promoting a belief system? Is there a church I am attending?
You could inform your roommate that you cannot have a tree in the back yard.
But is that the same as saying we now have a non-existent tree in out backyard? Which statement do you think will get me a funny look?
"Only natural beings exist on this planet and none of the extra-things that anybody may come up with are going to be real. None of them exist. Disbelieve them all, son, and go and spread this truth. There are no hidden beings around us."
I am not sure why you are quoting this. It is not anything I stated.
quote:
Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.
From wikipedia
It doesn't require a claim to take that position nor to proclaim it yourself.
I am sorry, but you are still seeing things ass-backwards. How any anyone make a claim about the non-existence of something if there is no concrete frame of reference? There is no logical basis for that to occur.
Consider the following statement:
"I don't believe in the Argulsneezer."
What does that mean? If I uttered that statement, wouldn't the immediate response from any individual be: "What's an Argulsneezer?"
There is no way someone can reject in the affirmative that which has not been posited.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-21-2016 2:11 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by Theodoric, posted 06-22-2016 10:59 AM Diomedes has replied
 Message 322 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-22-2016 12:02 PM Diomedes has replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 995
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


Message 321 of 414 (786475)
06-22-2016 11:24 AM
Reply to: Message 320 by Theodoric
06-22-2016 10:59 AM


The problem with people like Cat Sci and most religious is that they think belief is the default. Lack of belief to them is an active rejection of something.
That is often true. Ironically, it proves my original point: that the active belief must precede the rejection of said belief. I am not sure how anyone can assume that one can have an active 'dis-belief' in something that has not yet been defined or posited.
No-belief is actually the default. If it were the other way around everyone would have the same belief in a god, even people that were not indoctrinated. They would have the belief naturally.
Therein probably lies part of the confusion on their part. 'No Belief' as you are defining it is not the same as a rejection of a belief or a dis-belief. It is basically a clean slate. The entity in question has not been presented details on anything and as such, has no concept of the existence or non-existence of anything that is being presented.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by Theodoric, posted 06-22-2016 10:59 AM Theodoric has not replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 995
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


Message 324 of 414 (786481)
06-22-2016 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 322 by New Cat's Eye
06-22-2016 12:02 PM


You omitted the part of proclaiming that the idea was wrong, you stopped short of active disbelief to maintain the position that it is simply a response to a claim.
So in other words, I have to stand on a pulpit and proclaim that the idea was wrong in order to complete the atheist checklist? I am sorry, but your insistence on such a need is predicated on your notion of atheists needing to make a proclamation in the affirmative. Which is not required.
It's kinda funny, though, that the arguments are now that atheism can only be a response to a claim, and without a claim there is nothing to respond to and therefore no atheism. Because before, the arguments were that everyone is an atheist by default (because it is simply a lack of belief) until they hear about the concept of god. But now, hearing about the concept of god is required before someone can reject it and therefore be an atheist. Weird.
Anyways, atheism is a broad brush and there are different levels to it. There is no one thing that is atheism. There are three categories:
1) lack of belief that god exists
2) rejection of claim that god exist
3) active belief that god does not exist
Actually, not, that is is accurate. You are mixing two concepts together: belief and knowledge. Which brings into the fray the concepts of gnosticism and agnosticism. But atheism in and of itself is not split across categories: it is simply a rejection of a claim. Any other affirmations beyond that step outside of the boundaries of the basic classification and get into more detail.
Why does it have to be phrased that way? Wouldn't a person proclaiming the belief that gods cannot exist be an atheist?
And how would one make that proclamation if the concept of gods was already not posited? Even in that phrasing, the concept must precede the response. There is no way around that.
In the example I provided, any and all non-natural beings are rejected outright, so if you come and claim that, say, an Argulsneezer exists, then if it is a non-natural being then it has already been rejected before it was even claimed.
Who says the Argulsneezer is non-natural? Do you see the mistake you just made? And this is the crux of the problem. You are spanning boundaries between the natural and the supernatural without quantifying either. Then you stipulate that one can make affirmations in the negative regarding something that has never been posited to begin with. Sorry, but that makes no sense.
Sure, atheism can be a rejection of a claim. It can also be a simple lack of belief. But, it too can be a claim in itself.
This goes back to Theodoric's point: the issue here is individuals who are religious unable to come to grips with the notion that their view is not accepted in the default. Therefore, there MUST be some 'anti-view' that acts counter to their view and it must have some positive affirmation associated with it. And I am sorry, but that is not the case. It is merely a construct created in religious circles as a means to create some counter-point strawman that they can then go after.
But this is getting pretty pedantic, and straying from the point relating to atheism. You're insistence that atheism has to have a claim to reject is wrong for other reasons too:
Under the definition of atheism being simply a lack of belief in gods, an infant is an atheist before it can even verbally understand claims on gods existence.
But the label only applies once the concept of a god or gods is posited. An infant is also illiterate. Does that make them 'anti-literate' with some positive affirmation in the negative towards being literate? The label only makes sense when the concept is posited.
In order to understand this, you need to be familiar with the concept of ternary or 'three value logic'. It is common in software parlance, especially those of us that have worked with databases.
In that sense, you can have 'true', 'false' and 'undefined' when considering instantiating a database object. This also is applicable to classes and objects. An object that has not been instantiated is 'undefined'. Often referred to as 'null'. If I then instantiate it with the variable '0' or '1', denoting true and false states, this is not the same in any way to the 'null' state.
Expanding that concept, theism/atheism are the 1 and 0 states. Null is undefined. But it is impossible to set the values to 1 or 0 until one instantiates the object. i.e. one creates the concept of defining a value of 1 or 0 in that object space. That instantiation of the object must occur. That is exactly equivalent to the concept of something needing to be posited prior to having a positive or negative affirmation associated with that object.
As such, one absolutely cannot have a positive or negative response to something until that something is defined.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 322 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-22-2016 12:02 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 325 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-22-2016 1:43 PM Diomedes has not replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 995
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


(1)
Message 333 of 414 (786557)
06-23-2016 9:48 AM
Reply to: Message 332 by Theodoric
06-22-2016 8:14 PM


Atheism has to do with belief.
Agnosticism has to do with knowledge.
Gnostic Theist - Knows and believes there is a god
Agnostic Theist - Concedes has no knowledge there is a god but believes there is
Gnostic Atheist - Knows there is no god and does not believe either
Agnostic Atheist - Concedes has no knowledge there is no god, but has no belief or reason to believe there is.
Good summation. And this is what I usually try to convey (with limited success) when I have these discussions with religious folks.
Sometimes, the concepts of 'Strong Atheism' and 'Weak Atheism' have also been used in the past, but I have never been a fan of these as they are too vague and open to interpretation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by Theodoric, posted 06-22-2016 8:14 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 995
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


(1)
Message 410 of 414 (828523)
02-20-2018 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 409 by Tangle
02-20-2018 12:30 PM


Re: Never Hurts To Believe In Eternity
I remember a while back hearing that the last words recorded by the black box in an aircraft just before it crashes are 'oh fuck'. They don't appear to be praying.
At least in that situation, even if they were praying, I could understand the rationale.
What baffles me is sports fans praying to god for their respective team to win the game. An omniscient super entity that created the universe has nothing better to do with his/her time than to ensure the Dallas Cowboys or Pittsburgh Steelers win their games? Now THAT is amusing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 409 by Tangle, posted 02-20-2018 12:30 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 411 by Tangle, posted 02-21-2018 5:39 AM Diomedes has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024