Ambiguity of Atheism

[Falvlun]

Close. The ontological is "it is," and the epistemological is, "I know it is" --"no epistemology without ontology" means that the relationship is that if it's something we can genuinely call "knowledge," then it's real and true, and it's justified to believe in it. Conversely, if we take that from its rear-end and claim we don't believe in it, the relationship goes back up the ladder: it's not justified to believe it, because it's not real, true or actual.

There's your assertion.

No epistemology without ontology: In other words, things have to exist in order for us to know that they exist.

The problem, I suppose, is that we never really know whether what we know is genuine knowledge. So, simply claiming to know something doesn't prove its ontological existence.

As for your reversal, it hurts my mind, but yes, I see the connection to my position. I certainly believe that claiming "I don't believe..." is asserting that the belief is not justified-- the arguments and evidence have proven unconvincing. However, I do not claim that they are asserting that the belief is untrue. This harkens back to my theory on beliefs-- that they are what we find probable and not what we know for sure.

 

[Willamena]

No epistemology without ontology: In other words, things have to exist in order for us to know that they exist.

The problem, I suppose, is that we never really know whether what we know is genuine knowledge. So, simply claiming to know something doesn't prove its ontological existence.

The problem with the "never really knowing" nonsense is that we actually do know some things. We can make predictions about nature; we can appease our hunger with food; we can calculate a simple trajectory. Claiming knowledge never did prove existence --that's backwards of the relationship between existence and knowledge. Frontwards, it looks like this: things have to exist in order for us to know that they exist.

 

[idav]

Close. The ontological is "it is," and the epistemological is, "I know it is" --"no epistemology without ontology" means that the relationship is that if it's something we can genuinely call "knowledge," then it's real and true, and it's justified to believe in it. Conversely, if we take that from its rear-end and claim we don't believe in it, the relationship goes back up the ladder: it's not justified to believe it, because it's not real, true or actual.

There's your assertion.

Here's an assertion for you. I Know Nothing!!

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Here's an assertion for you. I Know Nothing!!

But you know you know nothing, which means you know something!

 

[idav]

But you know you know nothing, which means you know something!

Of course nothing means something. It would be like me saying "I don't know any english" using perfect english. Maybe that's all I know how to say.

 

[Acim]

But you know you know nothing, which means you know something!

My ongoing thought, exactly. To genuinely claim 'I know nothing' means one either knows something, which is confusing, but easier to understand than the other part which is, or one knows everything (there is to know). I think that is less confusing, but perhaps impossible to understand, since all people in the room seem to operate under idea that 'knowing everything' would mean knowing a whole lot of stuff, when in fact it could be (truly) equal to knowing nothing, in a consistent way. Obviously, my explanation may be confusing, but if you sit back and contemplate 'knowing nothing' for no more than 5 minutes, it could lead to profound awareness of what knowledge may actually entail.

I guess difference may be between knowing 'things' (very general, non specific) and understanding specific things. One who thinks they understand the intricacies of how the physical universe works, may have higher awareness (not best way of putting that) than one who knows what the entire physical universe 'really is.'

 

[cottage]

I'm sorry you still think that is my point. To reiterate, I am merely claiming that it is reasonable for theists to desire atheists to explain/justify their beliefs.

I do think theists are making the "bigger" claim, thus requiring a greater amount and quality of evidence. But, yes, in a sense, I do believe a claim is a claim is a claim, and people should know why they believe what they do, regardless of what that is.

In other words, I don't believe that atheism needs to justify itself to theism (it's only reasonable and polite to do so.) Atheists do, however, need to be able to justify atheism to themselves.

Yep, I’m broadly okay with that. But there is essentially only one claim, which is that worshipful, or otherwise praiseworthy, supernatural beings exist. Any claims that such beings do not, or cannot, exist are impossible to demonstrate or otherwise conclusively prove, which is why proof will always remain with those advocating mystical or supernatural beings.

Of course, actually running the experiment would be the only thing that could settle the matter. But, that's not always possible. What if the person dies before he is able to back up his claim? Proponents of the river jump could offer up other candidates, but even should they all fail, you would never know for sure that the original boaster couldn't have done it. So, what are your reasons for disbelief in the face of an inability for the question to be perfectly settled? You can't just claim a win because they failed to prove their point; as Copernicus pointed out, just because all of the theists' arguments fail doesn't mean that god still couldn't exist.

The [my] argument isn’t that God doesn’t exist, as the argument from ignorance above suggests, which would itself require extraordinary proof, and there isn’t some unreasonable task being demanded by sceptics. There is simply a request for a demonstration of what the advocates themselves claim.
The claimant has been invited to demonstrate the truth of his assertion. If for whatever reason he is unable to carry it out then the claim is unsubstantiated. That is the central point. It doesn’t mean that his claim is proved false, of course not! What it does mean is that he has the opportunity to make his case and demonstrate credibility but, for whatever reason, has failed to do so. And that, to leave the analogy for a moment, is the very essence of my argument. An extraordinary hypothesis has been advanced as if it were certain and true and yet none of the advocates have yet made good their claim to that effect. But unlike the analogy we’re not talking about a single, boastful individual, who might have died or broken his leg on the particular day set aside for his attempt. The advocates have had millennia to prove their point but haven’t yet done so. And remember that only a single demonstration of proof, ie certain truth, is required, making all the peripheral arguments and apologetics trivial and unnecessary. That is a powerful argument by any standards.

I am also perplexed by your use of "relative importance". Sure, it might be more important for the proponents to prove their wild claim (they have more riding on it), but that doesn't mean that there is no importance whatsoever for you to be able to back up your own disbelief. There seems to be an all or nothing feel to the "burden of proof" stance. Just because atheism and theism are not equally substantiative claims, and just because theism has a greater relative importance in proving its stance, doesn't mean that atheism has no responsibility, no substance, no importance whatsoever.

Perhaps you misread me? While I don’t have to back up my disbelief as if I am somehow ideologically opposed to mysticism, it is required of me to make properly articulated arguments, the burden of proof being just one such example. But it is a subject in its own right and one that has my particular interest (I’ve been studying the classic ‘proofs’ for more years than I care to remember). I hope to expand further on the matter as the thread develops, hobbies and work permitting.

 

[cottage]

Part 1

You do not understand. Linguistic expressions are seldom ambiguous in context. Their ambiguity disappears when we use them in conversations. It is only outside of a context that the sentence is ambiguous, and I can give you examples of "I do not believe that S" in which the ambiguity does not exist even outside of a conversational context. Puns are examples of intended ambiguity in context, and they are funny precisely because of the play on words. The expression "I do not believe that God exists" can be either a denial of belief or a rejection of belief, but not both.

I generally understand the term ‘assertion’ to mean an unsupported, confident, forceful, or emphatic statement. But the phrase, as I have used it, “I don’t believe x”, can be one of two things. It can be an expression of doubt or a complete rejection of x. I use the phrases, with qualification. Two examples I’ve regularly used are: “I don’t believe in God but I don’t believe God can be disproved”, and “I don’t believe biblical claims are true because the contradictions make them impossible”. The former example expresses uncertainty, whereas my disbelief is confidently asserted tautologically in the latter example. That latter example is a clear and emphatic statement. The former, it might be said, is still saying something meaningful, which is true. But I don’t see how an expression of uncertainty fits with the general understanding of a statement confidently asserted, particularly as the two premises it contains, while both saying something, each effectively confounds the meaning of the other.

My position is that arguments from popularity are logical fallacies that are extremely credible to humans at a gut level. Being a social species, we are hardwired to treat that kind of reasoning as credible. You treat them that way too, and that is precisely why you often make arguments that start with "Nobody has argued that..." We treat popularity of belief as a type of evidence.

This is just folk psychology, interesting but hardly unimpeachable. You say we are hardwired to give fallacious reasoning credibility - as if that were some kind of supreme justification. Surely the object is to discover the truth, not to offer mitigating arguments for false reasoning?

I'm not arguing that argumentum ad populum warrants credibility. I am arguing that it is an ineffective argument against theism, and it often comes off as condescending and arrogant. What people want to know is why you think that a minority point of view on the existence of God ought to be treated as credible.

In the case of mysticism, the fallacy want to assert something on the back of other people’s subjective beliefs, without qualifying the nature of those beliefs, which in some instances will be diametrically opposed.
Now forgive me, but what comes over as “condescending and arrogant” is being told that a perfectly legitimate objection is condescending and arrogant. Who are these ‘people’ that want to know why casting doubt on a supernatural being, held to exist from faith alone, is to be treated as credible? Are they not able to make their own arguments?

It is true that the majority can be wrong. Everybody acknowledges that. But why do you think they are wrong in this case? Too many atheists think that they hold the logical high ground, so they don't have to work as hard to make their case. That just isn't true. They may hold the logical high ground, but that does not make a very strong case for rejection of belief. Theism could be correct even if every argument in support of it is invalid. There are much better reasons to reject belief in God than that it is an invalid conclusion.

I don’t remember saying the majority is ‘wrong’. I have said that numbers do not automatically bestow credibility on an argument (as was suggested elsewhere). I wrote: “A belief is not given credibility ‘by virtue of being a majority belief.’ But it may, however, be given a fair hearing on that basis. The credibility of the belief will only be apparent, or not, when the arguments are properly heard and considered.”
And it is not a question of whether arguments are valid but whether they are sound. Premises can be invalid and the conclusion true. But if the premises are valid then the conclusion that follows will be sound, and in fact many of the peripheral arguments are sound. But all the peripheral arguments taken together still do not amount to a final proof, as I’m sure you’re aware. And please note that the lack of a full and final proof does not mean all further argument is rejected, as has been mischievously implied, but the claim is then treated as just another speculative metaphysical argument, and on that account I examine it for internal inconsistencies and contradictions. But the indictment stands, however, as does the challenge, and I reserve the right to return to it at any point.

Cottage, if you are going to have a debate with me about the existence of God, then you really do not have to work very hard. We are on the same side of the question. What you seem unable or unwilling to grasp here is that the argument is weak when directed at someone who is on the opposite side of the question.

Look, I’m sorry but I’m not really convinced (especially when I’m being told in a slightly patronising tone) that a third party is unimpressed with my efforts. It’s hardly an argument, is it?

Who said anything about worshiping aliens? The existence of aliens is another matter. You have already said that you believe in their existence, yet you also appear to deny it. Which is it? I think that you just mean to say that your belief is grounded in other things than concrete evidence--the plausibility of life having developed on other planets and the vastness of the universe, which makes the existence of other intelligent species likely. You can use similar arguments for rejecting belief in gods.

Believe in aliens? I’ll thank you not to put words in my mouth. I sure you know very well what it is I’m saying. Aliens, anything in fact, is logically possible except where a direct contradiction is involved, and the instantiation of logical possibility does not imply actuality.

No, it isn't. Debate is not about objectivity, but about sharing subjective opinion. It depends on forceful argument for one side or the other, not just the claim that one side of the debate has failed to prove its point and loses by default. It is subjective interpretations of the world that we have to share.

That, with respect, is utter nonsense. Debate is about the arguments and arguments have an objective structure even in the case of emotional subjects. Every argument, and I’m not including subjective special pleas, has a subject/predicate form with premises and a conclusion, even in informal debates. And all opinion is subject to evidence, which in turn is subject to proof or rebuttal. The objective world deals with mind-independent truth conditions that are observable and verifiable, facts in other words! Our subjective ideas are important too, of course, but when someone believes a thing to be true as in True for Me, they are making a mistake about the nature of truth because ‘true for me’ is not a concept of truth. Truth is absolute, not relative, and arguments stand or fall on that basis. The same cannot be said of subjective beliefs.

 

[cottage]

Part 2

Perhaps not. I'm just pointing out that you are not going to win many debates by ignoring popularity of belief, especially when you yourself seem to swear by it when it comes to taking the existence of other mythical beings seriously.

So what are you my tutor or lecturer now? I don’t ignore popular belief: I’m examining the argument from a particular popular belief and the conclusion, which is not substantiated. The fallacy here is not that the belief is popular but the fact that it is made on the backs of other believers’ unqualified subjective beliefs, a significant number of which will also be diametrically in opposition. In any case, whatever the numbers, evidence of supernatural beliefs is only evidence for belief in the supernatural.

And I don’t take ‘mythical beings’ seriously. I take possible beings seriously.

And I'll give you my argument in a nutshell. You will win every debate in which you are a self-appointed referee, but your opponents will likely remain unconvinced that you have won. You can proselytize atheism all day long to someone like me, and you will find your arguments an easy sell. Not so much with theists, however, since they do not start out with the assumption that you win by default.

Sigh! So far, most of this post is composed of you informing me of what I should or should not be doing and arguing on the behalf of an anonymous third party.

It informs us of why we should not expect to see them. If you say that we do not find evidence for Santa's existence, then the defender merely has to patiently explain the nature of magic to you. There are far better arguments against belief in Santa than merely pointing out there is no evidence for him, and you come up with them quite easily when pressed. The same is often true of arguments against God. There are far better reasons not to believe than the mere fact that we have no concrete evidence of his existence.

We don’t need to point out there is no evidence of Santa, since that much is already established. We simply say ‘Where is he?’ Santa’s advocates (Elves) can then choose to show us, or not. If not, then we are free to conclude that (a) Santa doesn’t exist or (b) that the Elves don’t know where he is. And of course there is no real, qualitative difference between (a) and (b). No dogmatism here, though. If Santa does appear, or the Elves point him out, then ‘Santa exists’ is true. Viola! Otherwise the Elves will just have to keep searching for Santa and continue in their faith-based belief that he is real, supernatural and benevolent.

Yes, you do make perfectly good arguments that have nothing to do with "burden of proof". That is not what this discussion has been about. It has been about the underwhelming effect that "burden of proof" arguments have on others in these debates. Very few theists are going to admit that they have to prove the existence of God, but those who do tend to think that they can. Pointing out to them that it has never been done before is a waste of your time and theirs.

Oh my God! <blinks> Rather surprised to see such an exquisitely superior attitude from you, Copernicus. <A bemused cottage raises eyebrows>

Anyway, my time is my own. And as I’m discussing this with you I’m plainly not wasting your time either.

Watch this space. More Burden of Proof arguments to follow.

 

[Copernicus]

I'm about to leave for China now, so I'll be even slower in responding. We are repeating a lot of our past arguments, so I'll be selective in my responses.

...You say we are hardwired to give fallacious reasoning credibility - as if that were some kind of supreme justification. Surely the object is to discover the truth, not to offer mitigating arguments for false reasoning?

The object of a debate is to provide persuasive and convincing arguments in favor of a position. Burden of proof arguments may have technical merit, but they do not explain why one ought to reject belief in gods, if that is your aim.

Now forgive me, but what comes over as “condescending and arrogant” is being told that a perfectly legitimate objection is condescending and arrogant. Who are these ‘people’ that want to know why casting doubt on a supernatural being, held to exist from faith alone, is to be treated as credible? Are they not able to make their own arguments?

He said condescendingly...

When someone wants to know why you do not believe in God, given how pervasive that belief is in human cultures, the argument that nobody has proven a god to exist and that atheists win the debate unless one can prove the existence of God does come off as condescending and arrogant to many theists. At least, that is what such people have told me repeatedly when I have tried that tactic. Now, I can just dismiss their reaction as one of irrationality and ignorance, or I can engage in a serious discussion of why one might not take such a belief as justified. Surely, it would certainly be silly to tell a child that nobody believes in Santa Claus because nobody can find any evidence for him. We sometimes treat children with more courtesy and respect than we do our adult peers.

Believe in aliens? I’ll thank you not to put words in my mouth. I sure you know very well what it is I’m saying. Aliens, anything in fact, is logically possible except where a direct contradiction is involved, and the instantiation of logical possibility does not imply actuality.

I can only guess at what you mean when you appear to contradict yourself. I thought I knew what you meant, and I paraphrased it in my last post. You didn't contradict my attempt to paraphrase, so I hope that I have made my point. If you say "I don't believe in aliens", what you generally mean is that you do not believe that aliens exist. I don't think you meant the claim to be taken as a blanket rejection of belief in aliens, but you seemed unaware of how it sounded.

That, with respect, is utter nonsense. Debate is about the arguments and arguments have an objective structure even in the case of emotional subjects. Every argument, and I’m not including subjective special pleas, has a subject/predicate form with premises and a conclusion, even in informal debates. And all opinion is subject to evidence, which in turn is subject to proof or rebuttal. The objective world deals with mind-independent truth conditions that are observable and verifiable, facts in other words! Our subjective ideas are important too, of course, but when someone believes a thing to be true as in True for Me, they are making a mistake about the nature of truth because ‘true for me’ is not a concept of truth. Truth is absolute, not relative, and arguments stand or fall on that basis. The same cannot be said of subjective beliefs

Wow. Where to start? Well, debates do have a logical structure. Nobody here has argued against that, so you need not try to defend it so vigorously. However, debaters quite often disagree over the truth of premises, and there are cases of 'true for me' in the world. For example, 'beer tastes good' is true for me, but not my wife. I might believe that a person's behavior is 'frugal', where you might judge it 'stingy'. Facts about the world are messy like that, not quite as cut-and-dried as you put it. In a real debate, you start with premises that people can agree on, and religious debates often involve a lot of preliminary discussion--e.g. definitions of words like 'god' and 'atheism'. My point was that theists quite often disagree on those premises, and one big disagreement they seem to have with atheists is that nobody has built a credible case for the existence of God. The debate may well turn on what we choose to call "credible" or "plausible".

And I don’t take ‘mythical beings’ seriously. I take possible beings seriously.

I think what you meant here was "reasonably possible" beings. It's not that all mythical beings are impossible. They are not reasonably possible beings.

Sigh! So far, most of this post is composed of you informing me of what I should or should not be doing and arguing on the behalf of an anonymous third party.

You would put it that way, but I wouldn't. We have been debating the usefulness of taking people seriously when they want to know why you dismiss belief in God, an extremely popular belief. Is it reasonable for them to expect you to come up with some good reasons for not believing in God? You seem to be saying that it isn't. I have been saying that it is.

We don’t need to point out there is no evidence of Santa, since that much is already established. We simply say ‘Where is he?’ Santa’s advocates (Elves) can then choose to show us, or not. If not, then we are free to conclude that (a) Santa doesn’t exist or (b) that the Elves don’t know where he is. And of course there is no real, qualitative difference between (a) and (b). No dogmatism here, though. If Santa does appear, or the Elves point him out, then ‘Santa exists’ is true. Viola! Otherwise the Elves will just have to keep searching for Santa and continue in their faith-based belief that he is real, supernatural and benevolent.

Omigosh. You really would try to argue a burden of proof case against Santa, wouldn't you? I guess you do want to stick to your guns on that one. I would just tell the kid about the nature of fairytales and why it makes no reasonable sense for a being like that to exist. The kid would hate us both, but I think he would hate you much more.

 

[9Westy9]

But you know you know nothing, which means you know something!

It means that the only thing that they know is that they know nothing other than the one thing they know. More confused? I know I am xD

 

[cottage]

The object of a debate is to provide persuasive and convincing arguments in favor of a position. Burden of proof arguments may have technical merit, but they do not explain why one ought to reject belief in gods, if that is your aim.

I have never said that one ‘ought to reject belief in gods’; while that may be a position taken by some campaigning anti-theists it has never been mine.
As with all unsubstantiated claims to the supernatural, belief is suspended until evidence proves otherwise. The ‘object’ is to ascertain the truth or otherwise of (unworldly) propositions, which in ordinary life would be thought by the advocates themselves to be fantastic or improbable. So as a matter of fact it is the ‘majority’ view that that unworldly or supernatural claims to existence (rather than mere hypothesising) are to be proven before they are accepted. But you appear to be pleading an exception to that general rule on behalf of said others!
If I were the only person in the entire world who didn’t have spiritual or mystical beliefs, the business of establishing proof would still be with those who are stating that something is the case. In fact, the onus is proportional to claim. For a majority view to be true (ie cannot be false) there must be something to account for its perceived truth and not merely the number of those who happen to believe it. The argument from other believers can be seen for what it is, a distraction, when it is self-evident that only a single demonstration is required to prove what is said to be the case.

When someone wants to know why you do not believe in God, given how pervasive that belief is in human cultures, the argument that nobody has proven a god to exist and that atheists win the debate unless one can prove the existence of God does come off as condescending and arrogant to many theists. At least, that is what such people have told me repeatedly when I have tried that tactic. Now, I can just dismiss their reaction as one of irrationality and ignorance, or I can engage in a serious discussion of why one might not take such a belief as justified.

And theists have told me time and again on this very forum that ‘God exists’ is true unless atheists can disprove it. It baffles me why you should think such anecdotal irrelevances carry any weight in this discussion. Also you seem to be implying that I want to shy away from discussion and argument to concentrate on an all-or-nothing proof! That is definitely not the case. Consider these two sentences:

Person A says ‘God exists’ and gives reasons that support his or her faith.

Person B says ‘God is the ultimate arbiter and He will punish the wicked and reward the righteous in heaven’

Person A, it is important to note, is not proposing that God exists because of the reasons given. The reasons are additional to his or her faith, but inferential or metaphysical arguments are given as a rational or reasoned response. The theist also shares the same empirical world as the sceptic and so there is common ground on which to argue. And even metaphysical arguments can be subject to internal and contextual truths. In sum, Person A and the sceptic can have their debate. Proof remains with Person A of course, and the option to settle the matter conclusively – if he or she can!

Person B has no argument at all since the truth of what is claimed can only be proved true by recourse to the demonstration that God exists is true.

 

[cottage]

Surely, it would certainly be silly to tell a child that nobody believes in Santa Claus because nobody can find any evidence for him. We sometimes treat children with more courtesy and respect than we do our adult peers.

I cannot for the life of me fathom why it is that you think I should be persuaded to discount the principle of proof? Nor can I understand why you think the argument by proxy that you’re using to promote it comes across as anything other than a slightly desperate but certainly irrelevant special plea.
With respect, your Santa analogy is wrong-headed, too. It isn’t the case that nobody can find any evidence of him: he is a fictional character. But if you want to take the analogy to its extreme, then it is for those who claim otherwise to furnish proof for what they say. It is as simple and straightforward as that.

I can only guess at what you mean when you appear to contradict yourself. I thought I knew what you meant, and I paraphrased it in my last post. You didn't contradict my attempt to paraphrase, so I hope that I have made my point. If you say "I don't believe in aliens", what you generally mean is that you do not believe that aliens exist. I don't think you meant the claim to be taken as a blanket rejection of belief in aliens, but you seemed unaware of how it sounded.

Believe in and believe that also have different meanings. A belief in implies a subjective, emotional or ideological commitment to a notion or idea. A belief that is subject to possibility. A belief in also implies a belief that (one can’t logically believe in a thing unless one first believes that the thing exists, ie the thing is possible). But theists believe God is not just possible but actual, and since what is actual is also possible the belief in is expressed in the sense that it is certain. I don’t have a belief in aliens. In fact I don’t believe aliens exist. But ‘I don’t believe that aliens (or gods) exist’ does not mean no aliens (or gods) exist. Disbelief doesn’t imply certainty (a tautological truth).

Wow. Where to start? Well, debates do have a logical structure. Nobody here has argued against that, so you need not try to defend it so vigorously. However, debaters quite often disagree over the truth of premises, and there are cases of 'true for me' in the world. For example, 'beer tastes good' is true for me, but not my wife. I might believe that a person's behavior is 'frugal', where you might judge it 'stingy'. Facts about the world are messy like that, not quite as cut-and-dried as you put it. In a real debate, you start with premises that people can agree on, and religious debates often involve a lot of preliminary discussion--e.g. definitions of words like 'god' and 'atheism'. My point was that theists quite often disagree on those premises, and one big disagreement they seem to have with atheists is that nobody has built a credible case for the existence of God. The debate may well turn on what we choose to call "credible" or "plausible".

I’m sorry but you’re entirely missing the crux of the matter here. Theists aren’t arguing from credibility or plausibility, nor are their beliefs being promoted as simply True for Me. They are claiming certainty! And so the entire controversy hinges not on subjective appeals but upon the question of truth and falsehood. Therefore the matter is reduced to facts and logic, and not subjective states of mind.

I think what you meant here was "reasonably possible" beings. It's not that all mythical beings are impossible. They are not reasonably possible beings.

What I meant was what I said. A possible being is a possible being and it cannot be augmented or limited by the term ‘reasonable’.

You would put it that way, but I wouldn't. We have been debating the usefulness of taking people seriously when they want to know why you dismiss belief in God, an extremely popular belief. Is it reasonable for them to expect you to come up with some good reasons for not believing in God? You seem to be saying that it isn't. I have been saying that it is.

Show where I have spoken of ‘dismissing God’ (or gods)?
And let’s remember why you say it is [reasonable to expect the sceptic to give good reasons for not believing in gods]. It is because you advocate the Argument from Other Believers (argumentum ad populum), which is fallacious both in the matter of assumed truth and in terms of classification. But I shall reserve my further comments for now, as I want to address that argument more fully in my next response to you.

 

[cottage]

Does anyone else want to join the discussion in which it is proposed that because a supposed 'majority' have some kind of spiritual or religious belief it is therefore incumbent upon unbelievers to justify their lack of belief?

 

[Caladan]

Second is to hopefully reach a consensus, via discussion, that summarizes atheism.

While I am aware of "weak" and "strong" atheism, that to me is part of 2nd aim of this thread. On that level, anyone is welcome to come in and provide definitions, personal assertion, sub-classifications, whatever. I will do my best to be person who is seeking clarification among participants and reaching consensus.

My 'Weak Atheism' comes into play when it comes to religious debates. normally I do not start from a position of assault on religion. in many cases its the contrary. in this case, I can treat the Jewish and Christian scriptures as having a traditional place as a pillar in Western civilization, in literature and even in law, or that the Vedas are central to India's culture.
My 'Strong Atheism' comes into play, when I need to comment about the triumph of biology or physics in the Watchmaker debates. in that I mean, in the debates which discuss evolution, the cosmos, and a creator God.
in this regard its very easy for me to fall back on naturalism, especially that science should be done without reference to the supernatural.

 

[atanu]

Does anyone else want to join the discussion in which it is proposed that because a supposed 'majority' have some kind of spiritual or religious belief it is therefore incumbent upon unbelievers to justify their lack of belief?

I think that was not the main issue of this sub-debate, which has no possibilty of ending. The point was, IMO, whether "I don't believe in Deity" involves any belief or not? Whether an atheist has to justify their lack of belief or not rests on resolution of the previous point.

Someone has already said that there is no epistemology without ontology. I will say that there cannot be any assertion, whether positive or negative, prior to a mental process related to the question. Here the differences start as to the nature of that mental process -- some call it rational, some call it belief, and some have even claimed total lack of mental process. I think there should be no question that there is indeed a mental process before any assertion either way. Even the third stance is taken after it is decided that the question of Deity is unanswerable or needs no scrutiny before rejection.

If there is no mental process then how is atheist's postion any better than the opponents?

 

[9Westy9]

Does anyone else want to join the discussion in which it is proposed that because a supposed 'majority' have some kind of spiritual or religious belief it is therefore incumbent upon unbelievers to justify their lack of belief?

You could be right. I left Christianity and am constantly 'justifying' my lack of belief to friends and family.

 

[waitasec]

Does anyone else want to join the discussion in which it is proposed that because a supposed 'majority' have some kind of spiritual or religious belief it is therefore incumbent upon unbelievers to justify their lack of belief?

are you saying it is better to fold than it is to stand with the courage of ones convictions?
that is nothing but peer pressure...

"the fool says there is no god", because only a fool would go against the norm and subject their selves to persecution for being skeptical and to being so bold as to say that they can think for their self...

 

[DreadFish]

I feel like this is very over-complicated, but that's just my opinion.

From my perspective, its as simple as this:

Theist - believes in God, gods, deities. Either or, any combination.

Atheist - doesn't believe in God, gods, deities.

Agnostic - Sees no way of proving whether God, gods, deities exist.


There are religions that are theistic, there are religions that are atheistic, there are non-religious people who are theistic, there are non-religious people who are atheistic.

Lack of belief in god, gods, deities, does not necessarily imply lack of belief in spirits, supernatural phenomena etc.

Materialism implies that material constitutes all that exists, and all phenomena are simply a result of material interactions.


A person could be any combination of the above mentioned things or other things.

Now, a person does not inherently have the obligation of justifying their beliefs to anybody, except when : trying to convince someone of their beliefs, trying to prove their beliefs, or trying to disprove someone else's beliefs.

If someone is content with their beliefs and doesn't care what others believe, has no problem with atheism, thesim, agnosticism, materialism etc. then they have no obligation to prove or justify their beliefs to anyone IMO.


As simple as that to me

 

[atanu]

If someone is content with their beliefs and doesn't care what others believe, has no problem with atheism, thesim, agnosticism, materialism etc. then they have no obligation to prove or justify their beliefs to anyone IMO.


As simple as that to me

He he. You made it appear simple to me too and that is a feat. But who will control that internal demon who is never content and strives strives srives to
.....?