Atheism isn't a belief?

Well, I can't speak for all people who call themselves atheists, but for me, I believe that there is no god.Does that help?

quote:

---

Theodoric writes:

​

To me it is not that I don't believe in god, it is that I know there is no god.

​

Assuming that God, if he were to exist, would have to be supernatural - how do you KNOW there is no God.

---

For Theodoric to know that there is no god, we would need, at a minimum, for the statement there is no god to be a true statement. Now if the statement were there is no quarter in my pocket, it can easily be determined whether that statement is true or false; all I need to do is check my pockets (and assume that people will trust my answer). However, it might be difficult to determine definitely that there is or is not a god. So Theodoric might know that there is no god, or he might not actually know that there is no god (since there might actually be a god!).Incidently, in case anyone cares, holmes would say that this is all that is required for Theodoric to know that there is no god; however many other epistemologists would additionally inquire whether Theodoric were justiifed in his belief.

I was speaking of the meaning of the word know. For me to know that there is no god three things would have to be true:1) I believe that there is no god.
2) My belief is justified.
3) It must be true that there is no god.1) is certainly true; I also feel that 2) is true: I believe that there is no god, and I feel that my belief is justified.However, if there actually is a god, then 3) is not true, and it should be obvious that then it would not be true that I know that there is no god. That is just what it means to know something.Incidently, an epistemic mininalist would not require justification of belief.

Hello, Ian.I guess I don't feel that the distinction between natural and supernatural in important, at least not in this question. Either there is good, unambiguous evidence that a god exists, or there is not. I feel that there is no good evidence for god; at best the evidence for a god is ambiguous, at worst it is nonexistent.So far, most questions about the world have been answered pretty well by completely naturalistic solutions. The questions that remain are relatively few and minor, and there is no a priori reason that a solution for those questions will not be naturalistic as well.Even if the correct answer for some of these questions (like, for example, the ultimate origin of the universe) is, in fact, a supernatural cause, we cannot yet know which questions have a supernatural solution, and which will eventually have a naturalistic one. So, I can say one of two things:The universe is completely naturalisticly, and all questions have naturalistic solutions even if I do not yet know what they are.orThe universe runs mainly naturalistically; but there is also a supernatural deity that is ultimately responsible for it. Some questions will have naturalistic solutions, others will have supernatural solutions.I cannot really see the practical difference between the two statements, so I will go with the simpler one.P.S. I am not an epistemic minimalist.

quote:

---

But they rest on a search that was never completed, if even started.

---

But coming to an incorrect conclusion also leads to a search that is never completed, at least not successfully completed.I am assuming that the goal is not to simply answer these questions, but to answer them correctly.Who am I? Why am I here? What is my place in the cosmos?These are, indeed, important questions, and questions that science cannot answer. But to reason that there must be a god when there is no good empirical evidence for the existence of such a god is to give an answer to these questions that is just as arbitrary as the answer given by any atheist.

Sorry for the delay in responding, iano. I've been trying to figure out how to answer your post.

quote:

---

There is ample reason to think there may be a God.

---

I can only say that if I agreed to this then I would not be an atheist -- I would be what is colloquially (to avoid argument with others on this thread) called "agnostic". But I am atheist because I don't think that there is much reason at all to think that there may be a god.

Hello, Ian. Sorry if this reply isn't quite what you want.Yes, you posed those questions, but science is not a suitable discipline to answer those questions; nor cannot it possible answer those questions. The answer to those questions have to come from outside of science. On the other hand, if whatever answer I come up with for those questions contradict basic facts uncovered by science, then I had better be prepared for disappointment. Science cannot supply answers to questions such as those, although it can constrain the possible answers.-

quote:

---

Evolution says you are an jumped-up ape, have no real meaning, other than that which may confer advantage for your species. And when you die your worm food.

---

Well, except for the "jumped-up ape" part, this is false. Science cannot have any say in what is "real meaning". That is up to the individual. As far as when you die, all science can do is study the material aspects of death -- "meaning" or even "soul" and "afterlife" cannot be studied by science, so science can have nothing to say about it.As an atheist, I feel that I have plenty of meaning in my life. And although I do believe that in the end all I will be is "worm food", I'm not bothered by it too much.I also think somewhat more highly of my fellow humans (and some non-human creatures) than you seem to give me credit for.

Iano,I don't agree with most of the statements in your post here, but I do agree with some of your conclusions.Science cannot answer questions like "Who am I" and "What is the meaning of my life". Science has its limitations. These are not the questions science can answer -- they are not within the scope of science. But when science sticks to its legitimate domain, it is very useful and, I would opine, very powerful.But I don't see this as a weakness of science. I just don't expect science to answer these sorts of questions, and so I am not disappointed. My answers to these questions will have to come from elsewhere.So what is the problem here? Science doesn't claim to answer these questions, nor should any of us expect it to. I don't have a problem with this.

quote:

---

You say there is no reason to believe in God because there is no empirical evidence as to his existance.

---

That, and that the tenets of the fundamentalist Christianity of which I was a member were self-contradictory.-

quote:

---

You accept that Science (whose basis is (or should more often be) the evaluation of empirical evidence) is not equipped to deal with the question.

---

Yes, science is based on observation and data and the development of theories that explain the data.-

quote:

---

You seem to require empirical evidence yet feel empirical evidence isn't to be expected.

---

No, that is not what I said. God either exists or he does not. If he exists I expect that there should be evidence of that. Unfortunately, the evidence that the Christian god exists is rather weak and no more compelling that any other character from mythology exists.However, that is very different from what I have been saying in my previous posts. In my previous posts I have been speaking of the purpose of my life, which science cannot answer for me. That is a purely personal journey that I must undertake, and the answers I come up with are based on my own subjective experiences. Again, I judge the "correctness" of my answer by evidence -- however this evidence is entirely subjective, based on whether I feel content and happy and satisfied.

quote:

---

Do you agree that if God exists (as a supernatural being) then empiricism is an invalid tool to apply to him?

---

I would agree that if God decided to leave no verifiable evidence as to his existence, then science has nothing with which to work.-

quote:

---

What kind of evidence do you reckon would suffice?

---

Well, he could actually walk into my house and speak with me. Even perform a few minor miracles that I would specify, just like Gideon, to prove to myself that I am not crazy. That would be one way.-You know, I feel as if we are not discussing the same topic. I really can't figure out the point you are trying to get across. I am an atheist. I feel that my disbelief in god is justified by a lack of evidence as to his existence. Not only do I not really understand what you are trying to say, I don't even know whether you are even responding to this or making a different point altogether.

All I am saying is that there does not appear to be any good evidence for the existence of a god. It is entirely rational to not believe in something for which there is no good evidence.

Hello, iano.Alright, then, what sort of evidence do I look for? When I find this evidence, how do I determine whether it really is indicative of god as opposed to some other explanation?