Ambiguity of Atheism

[Orias]

How many ways can you say "do not believe in god(s)". Don't think there are gods, lack belief in god, gods don't exists, gods probably do not exist. No matter how you say it, it's saying the same thing, not theism.

Because atheism is simply without God, anything else really is just an individuals add on, making it subjective per say. And what is subject is...ambiguous.

The way in which people adopt the label is not subjective, but the way they describe it to fit their person is.

I am an "atheist" because I don't believe in the Abrahamic God, I'm a non-theist because I don't disbelieve or believe in the existence of any other persons Gods, and I am a theist because I have a belief in my own personal God (which is not a supernatural or paranormal one). And for kicks and giggles I am also deicidal, because my God just down right kills others

 

[idav]

I am an "atheist" because I don't believe in the Abrahamic God, I'm a non-theist because I don't disbelieve or believe in the existence of any other persons Gods, and I am a theist because I have a belief in my own personal God (which is not a supernatural or paranormal one). And for kicks and giggles I am also deicidal, because my God just down right kills others

Cheerios is the best brand cause it's healthiest.

Maybe there are other healthy brands that might do the same thing.

 

[Orias]

Cheerios is the best brand cause it's healthiest.

Maybe there are other healthy brands that might do the same thing.

Heh, is there a metaphor in there?

 

[Acim]

How many ways can you say "do not believe in god(s)". Don't think there are gods, lack belief in god, gods don't exists, gods probably do not exist. No matter how you say it, it's saying the same thing, not theism.

If it stuck to that (not theism), and that was explained consistently for what it is, it would be less ambiguous.

We have many claims (read as dozens, if not thousands) around us that are claiming, "atheism is only (this)" and this varies a lot; like how God might vary a lot among theism, the 'only what atheism is' varies a lot. This thread was made to observe that, and make note of it.

 

[Orias]

If it stuck to that (not theism), and that was explained consistently for what it is, it would be less ambiguous.

We have many claims (read as dozens, if not thousands) around us that are claiming, "atheism is only (this)" and this varies a lot; like how God might vary a lot among theism, the 'only what atheism is' varies a lot. This thread was made to observe that, and make note of it.

Well thats silly, when you ask people what something is they are going to give their view point. You don't need to point out how people are making the term ambiguous, inconsistent, and subjective (for the most part).

 

[Falvlun]

I do understand the difference but I might actually argue the opposite. I can't buy 'not evidence' as 'evidence'. Though I might consider no evidence as proof enough for me to come to a conclusion. 100% certainty is not necessary.

\
Huh? You would argue that lack of evidence can be proof, but that it can't be used as evidence? Proof, to me, means incontrovertible. It means 100% certainty. Evidence is simply various bits of information that, when taken together, points you towards a specific conclusion, but does not necessarily constitute proof, or 100% certainty.

We use lack of evidence as evidence all the time. Take Bigfoot, fairies, or aliens as an example. Most people don't believe in those things primarily because we have no good evidence to believe they exist. We only commit a logical mistake when we take lack of evidence as incontrovertible proof of absence.

 

[Falvlun]

My response was also hypothetical. If nobody else believes (or few believe) that it is possible to clear a ten-metre river, then it is incumbent upon the advocate to demonstrate the possibility. It’s not for the rest of us doubters to make the attempt on advocate’s behalf.

Your analogy does not match the distribution of believers vs unbelievers: it is not the case that only a few believe that god exists. That was my entire point. The vast majority of people on Earth believe in the existence of god. Atheists are in the minority. So, if we were to make your 10 meter river jump apt to the actual discussion at hand, then the vast majority of people believe that the jump is possible, and a tiny minority do not believe that it is possible.

Both sides have a responsibility to support their position, but in practice, any minority position tends to have a greater responsibility to demonstrate why they do not hold the majority view.

You misunderstand. What I’m saying is that any claim relating to experience must be provable in possible experience, and hence the 10 metre river-jump analogy.

And remember I said that there is an element of sophistry and mischief in the ploy of failing to make a proper case and demanding of the doubters that they make theirs instead? That was the point of my previous post, which you seem to be missing. For example we see the Theory of Evolution attacked instead of the argument for creation being robustly made – on the basis that if evolution can be shown as suspect, then creation must be true; and the specious moral argument, where a lack of an explanation for so-called moral laws supposedly installs God as their cause by default. This is a fallacious, back-to-front form of argumentation that puts the ball in the court of the doubter, in order to deflect examination from the primary proposition one suspects, which is a rather odd position to take if the proposition is sound and so certain.

You still do not seem to be understanding my position. It does not matter that theists provide awful arguments for their position. That does not absolve atheists from the responsibility of providing good arguements for their own position.

Actually, that’s not what I’m saying at all. Arguments even if fallacious or misguided can always be taken to task. The point I’m making is that it is for the believer to present his reasoned argument and make his case, which is not to be simply passed to the sceptic to disprove, especially as the believer is quite unable to objectively establish his own ‘proof’ [more on which further down the page]. In one sense it may be said that the sceptic’s objections are the most vulnerable since he/she doesn’t pretend to argue beyond the logical/empirical world and so can be wrong, whereas the theists, their claims being an article of faith, can never make such an admission, and it is because of that the burden is placed inexorably upon the theists to demonstrate the certainty that is claimed.

If someone who was pro-life could not provide a reasoned arguement for her position, does that mean I, someone who is pro-choice, am not required to have a reasoned arguement for my own position?

If a friend randomly asked you "Why don't you believe God exists?" would you first demand of them that they ennumerate all the reasons that they believe God exists before you would reply to their question? Or would you just answer their question?

‘Exhibiting my bias’! <laughs> Well of course! So was it not already obvious that I’m a religious sceptic? (See the beginning of my last post and the info below my screen name)

My own position is that I have no reason to believe in the supernatural being of doctrinal belief systems, unless or until compelling argument or evidence demonstrates otherwise. To date there have been none.

I know your position. My point was that when weighing whether evidence is good evidence you must try to be as neutral as possible. Otherwise, you could have a theist present you God on a silver platter, and still maintain that "that's not good enough!".

You have it the wrong way round. It is because the argument for theism is not self-evident, or otherwise evidentially convincing, that individuals are not compelled to argue against a system of belief as faith that they do not share – or have an erroneous label attached to them as a consequence. And more to the point I happen to think it is rather ‘jerk-like’ (if we must now trade insults) to expect individuals to have to defend themselves against others’ otherworldly, spiritual or mystical claims. Much as I, personally, enjoy the role of a religious sceptic (I’ll be pleased to give you my arguments on any theistic claim), the fact remains that theism is propositional and makes assertions that it cannot evidence or support, such as the existence of a supernatural being and life after death, and therefore the broader point is those who do not share those fantastic beliefs do not have to absurdly disprove the existence of the thing that they cannot with good reason believe to exist. It is theism, not atheism that needs to be justified. Were theism a demonstrable truth, atheism self-evidently would have no role.

Any position, belief, claim, etc needs to be able to be supported. If you can't support it, then it's not a good position to hold. I will stand by that stance.

In regards to atheism, I don't disagree with you: I too have not found theist claims convincing. But that does not mean I am unable to articulate my reasons for disbelief. And if I am able to articulate them, and simply refuse to because "I don't have to, so nah!", then yes, I would be a jerk.

 

[cottage]

[/font][/color]
Your analogy does not match the distribution of believers vs unbelievers: it is not the case that only a few believe that god exists. That was my entire point. The vast majority of people on Earth believe in the existence of god. Atheists are in the minority. So, if we were to make your 10 meter river jump apt to the actual discussion at hand, then the vast majority of people believe that the jump is possible, and a tiny minority do not believe that it is possible.

Both sides have a responsibility to support their position, but in practice, any minority position tends to have a greater responsibility to demonstrate why they do not hold the majority view.

It appears that you to want to take this discussion in a direction that has little to do with what I expressed in my original post. As a sceptic who argues robustly against religious claims it now seems I’m being given lessons on how to do just that! My original post was certainly not about being excused arguments against the existence of God (which in any case is logically possible) but about the commonly used ploy of defending an argument by deflecting proof onto the sceptic.

The widely held claim, which I accept, is that around eighty percent of people in the world are religious, or have some kind of spiritual belief? However, this happens to include all manner of beliefs and faith systems that do not necessarily include God or gods. Anyway, I will extend my analogy to say even if 99.9% of the world believe as a matter of faith in a mystical being who supposedly will do, or is said to have done, particular things, then that is even more reason for them to demonstrate to the 1% how that huge number of beliefs are all in fact true. To use the Argument from Other Believers (argumentum ad populum) is a fallacious appeal to probability: if the belief of one person can be wrong then all can be wrong, and yet it takes only a single demonstration to prove X is the case. Once more my 10-metre river-jump analogy applies. For if X is the case, then it is the case, notwithstanding my scepticism or disbelief.

You still do not seem to be understanding my position. It does not matter that theists provide awful arguments for their position. That does not absolve atheists from the responsibility of providing good arguements for their own position.

Well of course it doesn’t! And I’ve never said or implied otherwise, as my posting history on this forum will more than adequately show.

[/font][/color]
If someone who was pro-life could not provide a reasoned arguement for her position, does that mean I, someone who is pro-choice, am not required to have a reasoned arguement for my own position?
If a friend randomly asked you "Why don't you believe God exists?" would you first demand of them that they ennumerate all the reasons that they believe God exists before you would reply to their question? Or would you just answer their question?

Here again you are pursuing a point that really has nothing at all to do with my original post.

I know your position. My point was that when weighing whether evidence is good evidence you must try to be as neutral as possible. Otherwise, you could have a theist present you God on a silver platter, and still maintain that "that's not good enough!".

I’m not saying that we ought to high-mindedly pre-judge an argument on its presumed credibility before deciding whether it is worthy of debate. But asking for evidence or proof of what is claimed is a perfectly justified and appropriate response.

Here is a passage from Awake:

“Although all consciousness ends at death, our Maker, who is even aware of each sparrow that dies, lovingly remembers us. As he promised, he will resurrect us, yes, bring us back to life. He will call us back from the sleep of death.”

Two claims have been made there, that there is a God and that he will cause particular things to happen. Both need to be justified. Now it’s not for me to prove the claims false, which would be an absurd task, but in any event the truth is the truth and so I remain open to having my doubts shown as misplaced. The challenge then is for the parties who claim certainty in their beliefs to step up and demonstrate such, or provide evidence so that the matter can be argued properly. In other words it is not acceptable for the mystic to simply make claims and then retreat, claiming his argument remains unassailed.

A sceptic I may be, but my scepticism is not based on an a priori, anti-theist ideology. For me it is all about the arguments. But any argument I make by return is only a response to the assertions and of course it must be rational and logical, but the fundamental point here is that it is the mystical claims that needs to be justified. If my response is in error or fallacious, then everything remains as it was and my rubbish argument doesn’t on that account confer truth upon the mystical claim. But as with all otherworldly or mystical claims, the requirement for the presentation of proof will always remain with those who make the assertions.

 

[idav]

\
Huh? You would argue that lack of evidence can be proof, but that it can't be used as evidence? Proof, to me, means incontrovertible. It means 100% certainty. Evidence is simply various bits of information that, when taken together, points you towards a specific conclusion, but does not necessarily constitute proof, or 100% certainty.

We use lack of evidence as evidence all the time. Take Bigfoot, fairies, or aliens as an example. Most people don't believe in those things primarily because we have no good evidence to believe they exist. We only commit a logical mistake when we take lack of evidence as incontrovertible proof of absence.

Lack of evidence gives for certainty that something doesn't exist. Just cause Joe Dirt tells me that he got abducted by aliens, should that sway me even .01 percent?

 

[Falvlun]

It appears that you to want to take this discussion in a direction that has little to do with what I expressed in my original post. As a sceptic who argues robustly against religious claims it now seems I&#8217;m being given lessons on how to do just that! My original post was certainly not about being excused arguments against the existence of God (which in any case is logically possible) but about the commonly used ploy of defending an argument by deflecting proof onto the sceptic.

You stated that there was "an element of sophistry and mischief in the ploy of failing to make a proper case and demanding of the doubters that they make theirs instead." While I agree that theists should be held accountable, I was merely pointing out that it is not unreasonable to desire an explanation of an atheist's stance as well. One of the reasons why it is not unreasonable is that the majority of people on Earth do believe in the existence of God, making the atheist belief a minority. That is what my original post in response to your post was about (post 84, page 9).

I see absolutely no benefit derived from the spiraling argument about who is responsible for making their argument first. And that is what I was reacting against in your post.

The widely held claim, which I accept, is that around eighty percent of people in the world are religious, or have some kind of spiritual belief? However, this happens to include all manner of beliefs and faith systems that do not necessarily include God or gods. Anyway, I will extend my analogy to say even if 99.9% of the world believe as a matter of faith in a mystical being who supposedly will do, or is said to have done, particular things, then that is even more reason for them to demonstrate to the 1% how that huge number of beliefs are all in fact true. To use the Argument from Other Believers (argumentum ad populum) is a fallacious appeal to probability: if the belief of one person can be wrong then all can be wrong, and yet it takes only a single demonstration to prove X is the case. Once more my 10-metre river-jump analogy applies. For if X is the case, then it is the case, notwithstanding my scepticism or disbelief.

While belief of the majority is not proof of the truth of the belief, it does lend it some credence; it is evidence in the belief's favor. That is simply how our minds work in the real world.

But I was not using the argumentum ad populum as proof for theism. I was using it as a reason why atheists have a responsibility to present their own argument.

But as with all otherworldly or mystical claims, the requirement for the presentation of proof will always remain with those who make the assertions.

How is a negative stance (I don't believe in the existence of gods) any less of a stance than the positive (I believe in the existence of gods)? Heck, even someone with the "Oh, I just lack a belief in the existence of gods" is still taking a position. We all are asserting something.

 

[Falvlun]

Lack of evidence gives for certainty that something doesn't exist.

No it doesn't. The most famous example being that of the black swans. Europeans had no reason to believe that swans were anything but white. They had absolutely no evidence for the existence of black swans, and so they did not believe that black swans existed. Then, lo and behold, they finally make their way to Australia, and there are black swans. So, their previous certainty based solely upon lack of evidence produced a false belief, however reasonable it might have been.

Just cause Joe Dirt tells me that he got abducted by aliens, should that sway me even .01 percent?

I don't know how much it should sway you. But, personal experience, eyewitness accounts, etc, while notoriously unreliable, can be used as a bit of evidence in favor of a belief.

 

[idav]

No it doesn't. The most famous example being that of the black swans. Europeans had no reason to believe that swans were anything but white. They had absolutely no evidence for the existence of black swans, and so they did not believe that black swans existed. Then, lo and behold, they finally make their way to Australia, and there are black swans. So, their previous certainty based solely upon lack of evidence produced a false belief, however reasonable it might have been.


I don't know how much it should sway you. But, personal experience, eyewitness accounts, etc, while notoriously unreliable, can be used as a bit of evidence in favor of a belief.

How is it a false belief when you have no reason to think otherwise. Just like courts don't have a reason to trump up charges for things that didn't happen, at least we should hope.

Lots of people say they have been abducted by aliens but there are more reasonable explanations.

 

[Falvlun]

How is it a false belief when you have no reason to think otherwise. Just like courts don't have a reason to trump up charges for things that didn't happen, at least we should hope.

I already showed how it can produce a "false belief". (Perhaps not the best term: by false belief, I meant a belief in something that turned out to be untrue.) Lack of evidence can therefore not be taken as 100% knock down proof, since it can result in incorrect answers.

Believing something based upon lack of evidence is not unreasonable as long as you understand that it is not a sure thing. And hopefully you have more than just that to go on.

Lots of people say they have been abducted by aliens but there are more reasonable explanations.

Sure. I am just saying that the experience of people can be taken as evidence. I see evidence as the building blocks of belief: you should have many pieces of evidence building up to your conclusion. There are reasons why you may reject pieces of evidence-- such as the unreliablity of eyewitnesses-- and if you reject enough pieces of evidence, or if there are not enough to begin with, then you won't ever come to hold that belief. You are, in fact, building a belief in the opposite direction-- the negative belief.

 

[idav]

I already showed how it can produce a "false belief". (Perhaps not the best term: by false belief, I meant a belief in something that turned out to be untrue.) Lack of evidence can therefore not be taken as 100% knock down proof, since it can result in incorrect answers.

Believing something based upon lack of evidence is not unreasonable as long as you understand that it is not a sure thing. And hopefully you have more than just that to go on.


Sure. I am just saying that the experience of people can be taken as evidence. I see evidence as the building blocks of belief: you should have many pieces of evidence building up to your conclusion. There are reasons why you may reject pieces of evidence-- such as the unreliablity of eyewitnesses-- and if you reject enough pieces of evidence, or if there are not enough to begin with, then you won't ever come to hold that belief. You are, in fact, building a belief in the opposite direction-- the negative belief.

Rejecting evidence is very similar to not having evidence. Are you saying rejecting evidence counts as evidence? I would assume that atheists don't think anything is evidence of god but your saying there is some rejection of evidence. Does it really count as evidence in the first place like when silly atheists reject creation as evidence of a creator? It's all in the interpretation of so called evidence or lack of.

 

[Falvlun]

Rejecting evidence is very similar to not having evidence. Are you saying rejecting evidence counts as evidence?

Well, we usually don't just reject evidence willy-nilly, do we? We have reasons for rejecting the evidence.

To go back to our example, we don't reject someone claiming to have been abducted by aliens "just cuz". We reject it because the person might be unreliable (crazy, drunk, etc) or because human minds in general can be unreliable (we thought we saw a UFO, but really, it was just a helicopter; or we had some traumatizing experience that we interpreted as alien abduction). Or because we find the existence of intelligent, local aliens to be exceedingly unlikely, and in need of more coroboration than just a handful of suspect witnessess.

So the reasons why we reject evidence is essentially the evidence we are using in support of the opposite stance: That our friend was not abducted by aliens.

I would assume that atheists don't think anything is evidence of god but your saying there is some rejection of evidence. Does it really count as evidence in the first place like when silly atheists reject creation as evidence of a creator? It's all in the interpretation of so called evidence or lack of.

While not everything theists advance as evidence for their position qualifies as evidence, some of it certainly does, such as personal experience, and I would include, the widespread belief in the existence of god.

I suppose there is a difference between evidence and reasons for believing in something, though both are building blocks of a belief. A reason for believing in the existence of god might not necessarily constitute evidence, but all evidence would be a reason. The belief that the Earth and everything in it could not have "just happened" but required a Higher Power would be a reason to believe in God, but not evidence, since you can't really show that is necessarily so (and science is giving us ever greater reasons to doubt it).

 

[Tonymai]

There are three realities we experience: material, mindal, and spiritual. Atheism in its truest form should be denying the existence of spiritual reality. God and no God is just a minor point. Current scientific materialism has blind many able thinking minds of the spirit reality of existence.

 

[Willamena]

There are three realities we experience: material, mindal, and spiritual. Atheism in its truest form should be denying the existence of spiritual reality. God and no God is just a minor point. Current scientific materialism has blind many able thinking minds of the spirit reality of existence.

Kudos for the best made-up word I've seen in a long time.

 

[Falvlun]

There are three realities we experience: material, mindal, and spiritual. Atheism in its truest form should be denying the existence of spiritual reality. God and no God is just a minor point. Current scientific materialism has blind many able thinking minds of the spirit reality of existence.

There are spiritual atheists. Atheism is only about the question of the existence of God. Like you say, that's a minor point when you consider the vast other possibilities that a spiritual animal can explore.

 

[Tonymai]

God is the original cause of science, the unity in philosophy, and the loving Father in religion. The First Source and Center of everything actual and potential. If God could be defined, He would not be.

 

[Acim]

The fuzzy nature of a definition for God is what makes the concept of God plausible. If we find a clear cut definition of God, that would be evidence against God's existence.

(Trying to use another similarly irrational and bizarre type claim as this one above, to fit into this thread.)