Ambiguity of Atheism

[DreadFish]

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
.....?

Only we can control our own inner demons

 

[cottage]

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?

Yes, of course ‘I don’t believe in a deity’ involves belief. It is disbelief. And my disbelief exists because evidence of mystical beings is lacking, a conclusion which is itself a mental process, but it is not necessary to apprise (and appraise) my every thought on the matter in order to justify my disbelief. For if something is the case, then it is the case. It is for believers to give reasons, provide evidence and convince me of their claims to the truth.

But the argument was made that sceptics are under some kind of obligation to justify their lack of belief in the face of a supposed majority that believe in God or gods, as if numbers alone make the claims to mystical beliefs credible. I’m saying they do not.

 

[atanu]

Yes, of course ‘I don’t believe in a deity’ involves belief. It is disbelief. And my disbelief exists because evidence of mystical beings is lacking, a conclusion which is itself a mental process, but it is not necessary to apprise (and appraise) my every thought on the matter in order to justify my disbelief. For if something is the case, then it is the case. It is for believers to give reasons, provide evidence and convince me of their claims to the truth.

But the argument was made that sceptics are under some kind of obligation to justify their lack of belief in the face of a supposed majority that believe in God or gods, as if numbers alone make the claims to mystical beliefs credible. I’m saying they do not.

But in that case, it depends on the context. If I am the atheist preacher then I got to show my reasons for my belief, else it is not any different from a theist preacher's case.

 

[Willamena]

But the argument was made that sceptics are under some kind of obligation to justify their lack of belief in the face of a supposed majority that believe in God or gods, as if numbers alone make the claims to mystical beliefs credible. I’m saying they do not.

The argument, as it should have read, is that skeptics have already justified their not believing --it's the reason for their not believing, and the reason for skepticism.

"Lack of belief" doesn't belong to the atheist or the theist, hence to everyone.

 

[idav]

But in that case, it depends on the context. If I am the atheist preacher then I got to show my reasons for my belief, else it is not any different from a theist preacher's case.

Nobody should be obligated to show reasons for non-existence of something. If there is only circumstantial evidence for bigfoot existing then the evidence is up for debate. However it is the the believer that is showing the evidence will be debunked or discredited. How should someone show bigfoot doesn't exist other than discrediting supposed evidence of believers?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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?

If we phrase things the right way, everyone can be shown to hold a minority view on any particular belief we have. If your argument works for non-believers, it works for everyone.

 

[Willamena]

Nobody should be obligated to show reasons for non-existence of something.

"Atheism" isn't "the non-existence" of something. It's the existence of atheism.

How should someone show bigfoot doesn't exist other than discrediting supposed evidence of believers?

One cannot show something doesn't exist by discrediting evidence. That's why it's best to keep an open mind.

 

[idav]

"Atheism" isn't "the non-existence" of something. It's the existence of atheism.

I was talking about believing something doesn't exist.

One cannot show something doesn't exist by discrediting evidence. That's why it's best to keep an open mind.

I have an open mind but I have my limits like with the magic bullet theory.

 

[atanu]

Nobody should be obligated to show reasons for non-existence of something.

We were talking about showing reasons for (existence) of a belief. And this is specific to debate with Cottage.

 

[idav]

We were talking about showing reasons for (existence) of a belief. And this is specific to debate with Cottage.

Yes I know. I've also had this debate in this thread. Something you said caused me to want to chime in.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

One cannot show something doesn't exist by discrediting evidence. That's why it's best to keep an open mind.

In some cases the absence of evidence is, in fact, evidence of absence.

What does having "an open mind" entail?

 

[9Westy9]

What does having "an open mind" entail?

open mind - having a mind receptive to new ideas, arguments, etc.; unprejudiced

 

[cottage]

But in that case, it depends on the context. If I am the atheist preacher then I got to show my reasons for my belief, else it is not any different from a theist preacher's case.

Not quite. If the matter concerns a question of justified non-belief, then all the 'atheist preachers' need do is to simply ask the same question of the theist that they ask themselves: 'Where are these gods?'

 

[Willamena]

In some cases the absence of evidence is, in fact, evidence of absence.

What does having "an open mind" entail?

Not mistaking evidence of absence for absence.

 

[cottage]

Originally Posted by Jayhawker Soule
In some cases the absence of evidence is, in fact, evidence of absence.

What does having "an open mind" entail?

Not mistaking evidence of absence for absence.

Indeed the absence of evidence can unmistakeably be evidence of absence, where x is necessary for p, but x is notevident or demonstrable and therefore no p.

 

[Willamena]

Indeed the absence of evidence can unmistakeably be evidence of absence, where x is necessary for p, but x is notevident or demonstrable and therefore no p.

Let p equal 'existence of a'. What is necessary for p?

 

[idav]

Let p equal 'existence of a'. What is necessary for p?

Absence means not having knowledge of something being in existence. There are far too many things that I'm not aware of to give it any serious thought. Absence of evidence means someone has to trump up some charges.

 

[cottage]

Absence means not having knowledge of something being in existence. There are far too many things that I'm not aware of to give it any serious thought. Absence of evidence means someone has to trump up some charges.

'Absence' normally means a thing (that exists) happens not to be present in a particular instance. In this context the absence refers to a thing that is alleged or claimed to exist.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Atheism to me means that it is logical to reject any belief in anything that no reliable evidence exists to justify it.

Yeah....what you said.....:yes:

 

[Protester]

In some cases the absence of evidence is, in fact, evidence of absence.

What does having "an open mind" entail?

Apparently an "open mind" means anything that doesn't contradict atheism!

Romans 1
19because that which is known of God is revealed in them, for God revealed it to them. 20For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse. 21Because, knowing God, they didn’t glorify him as God, neither gave thanks, but became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless heart was darkened.--World English Bible

Now of course Exploring the Limitations of the Scientific Method is a gross heresy to atheists, but so be it. But moving further away from the Bible, one can look at, Some Interesting Statements By Scientists: (only one is by a biblical creationist).

Finally into agnostic territory, Previewing Metamorphosis: The Case for Intelligent Design in a {Nutshell} Chrysalis

Yep, there's a God!:yes: