Atheism: A non belief isn't oppositional to a belief

[Darkstorn]

You claimed "disbelief" because you keep thinking this is about what you believe.

I didn't actually make any claims regarding beliefs there. Or otherwise. I said i'm making no claims regarding big foot. Very simple here.

I think you are making claims of my beliefs, and are refusing to believe me when i say those claims are your fantasy.

But this isn't really about what anyone believes. It's about accepting or rejecting an assertion as valid or invalid.

Okay. Good luck with that.

Person "A" asserts that a life form called "Bigfoot" exists based on "X" reasoning. Person "B" rejects that assertion and the reasoning that supports it based on "Y" reasoning.

What about person "C" who asserts nothing of any kind regarding bigfoot? What if the claims have more to do with the Easter Bunny instead?

It's a logic scenario, not a "belief" scenario. No one cares what "A" or "B" actually believes or does not believe. That isn't the issue. The issue is whether the proposition is being accepted or rejected, and by what reasoning. And the discussion/debate is about the logical validity of our reasoning, not our beliefs.

But what if a person doesn't reject or accept something? Like, imagine not ever having heard of a concept. How do you define such a thing you have never experienced?

Now, imagine a person who has not made a decision.

It's about the reasoning by which we deem a truth proposition valid or invalid

That's a pretty simplistic world view on your part. Things are either true or they are not? What if they are *slightly* valid or *slightly* invalid?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

None of this is about what anyone believes or doesn't believe. It's about the reasoning by which we deem a truth proposition valid or invalid. When someone hides behind the insistence of their "unbelief", I think it's because they know they can't defend the reasoning, if there even is any, through which they have deemed a proposition invalid. Certainly, the response is designed to stifle any further inquiry in that direction.

Well, I can also just say what I believe doesn't exist also, and as anyone does, I have my defenses of such a position. Without sufficient evidence on either side, where does it leave us?

 

[PureX]

Well, I can also just say what I believe doesn't exist

What possible point, or value, would there be in asserting the negative? And anyway, wouldn't that be an infinite task? Is there a limit to what you don't believe to exist?

Without sufficient evidence on either side, where does it leave us?

It leaves us with the reasoning by which we arrive at our presumptions. Which is why I think it's so important that we recognize those presumptions, and not deny them. Like the presumption that God/gods don't exist unless someone can prove to me that they do.

 

[Ponder This]

There are more than than two sides here.

I think you have failed to understand what a debate is.
A debate centers around people making opposing claims.

Person A logs on to RF and states: 'I believe that a God or gods exist.'
Person B logs on to RF and states: 'I lack a belief that a God or gods exist.'
Person C logs on to RF and states: 'I believe that a God or gods do not exist.'
Person D logs on to RF and states: 'I lack a belief that a God or gods do not exist.'

What is the most likely topic of debate?
A. whether or not person A has a belief that a God or gods exist
B. whether or not person B has a lack of belief that a God or gods exist
C. whether or not Person C has a belief that a God or gods exist
D. whether or not Person D has a lack of belief that a God or gods do not exist
E. whether or not a God or gods exist

All are valid topics of debate, but one of these topics is more likely than the others.

 

[Darkstorn]

I think you have failed to understand what a debate is.
A debate centers around people making opposing claims.

But you were talking about beliefs, not claims.

Consequently: my point is that people are capable of talking about things they have no opinion of.

You seem to imply such people don't exist.

 

[Segev Moran]

If you think that your atheism is non belief, concerning a belief, then it does not inherently make your non belief, oppositional, to the belief.

If you think your belief makes your belief true, than your belief makes you believe its true, yet it is probably not.

 

[Desert Snake]

If you think your belief makes your belief true, than your belief makes you believe its true, yet it is probably not.

Belief can either be evidenced, or not. The idea that a belief is considered, true, or personal truth, I completely agree.

Atheism is sort of a word that doesn't match theism, because of the definition. atheism tends to mean 'non evidence therefore not true', whereas in traditional theism, belief does not need evidence.

Either way, atheism is not an inherent truth, it's a personal belief, or non belief, or whatever.

 

[Milton Platt]

If you think that your atheism is non belief, concerning a belief, then it does not inherently make your non belief, oppositional, to the belief.

I know it is a lack of belief. the rest of your statement is not even relevant.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

We needn't look far to see ourselves doing this. It is simply assimilation and accommodation. It is how we form schemes to define terms. Whether you want to acknowledge or not, you do have a concept of what a god is, otherwise you wouldn't be able to determine when something did not fit into the category of gods.

Of course I do.

That you want to refrain from making any public claims regarding the existence or lack of existence of your god concept is interesting. You seem to have slid in the inconsistency of the definition as an excuse. Yet, does this really matter? If John considers a carrot a god, your god concept is consistent enough to determine that you do not recognize this as a god.

Its actually not very interesting, and you're drawing a long bow.
I'll happily tell you I don't believe there is an Abrahamaic God, I don't believe in Shiva, and I wouldn't worship a carrot.
What statement is it you think I'd refrain from making?

I don't think saying gods do not exist is any different than cows don't have claws. If John wants to tell me his cat is a cow, I am not likely to believe him. If Sally wants to argue that hooves are claws, I am not likely to believe her. However if Lewis can show me a new type of cow that does indeed have claws, well then I will assimilate this new information and accommodate my existing scheme. But as of now, I believe cows don't have claws and gods don't exist.

Fair enough. I don't remember saying anything contrary to that.

Do you think that you are different?

Me? No, not essentially. I am an atheist, and have all sorts of beliefs.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Belief can either be evidenced, or not. The idea that a belief is considered, true, or personal truth, I completely agree.

Atheism is sort of a word that doesn't match theism, because of the definition. atheism tends to mean 'non evidence therefore i do not consider it true', whereas in traditional theism, belief does not need evidence.

I think you have a few things mixed up. First, it is skeptics who say that "the lack of evidence prevents me from accepting your claims as true". It is atheists who say "I don't believe in deities". It is true that most atheists are skeptics, but they are still separate things.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I think you have failed to understand what a debate is.
A debate centers around people making opposing claims.

Person A logs on to RF and states: 'I believe that a God or gods exist.'
Person B logs on to RF and states: 'I lack a belief that a God or gods exist.'
Person C logs on to RF and states: 'I believe that a God or gods do not exist.'
Person D logs on to RF and states: 'I lack a belief that a God or gods do not exist.'

What is the most likely topic of debate?
A. whether or not person A has a belief that a God or gods exist
B. whether or not person B has a lack of belief that a God or gods exist
C. whether or not Person C has a belief that a God or gods exist
D. whether or not Person D has a lack of belief that a God or gods do not exist
E. whether or not a God or gods exist

All are valid topics of debate, but one of these topics is more likely than the others.

But that's not how most debates happen between theists and atheists. The debate centers around the quality of the evidence that the theist claims to have for the existence of God. That is where there are opposing views, and it mostly centers around logic, reason, and the definition of evidence. In this case, it is a debate between a believer and a skeptic.

 

[Desert Snake]

I think you have a few things mixed up. First, it is skeptics who say that "the lack of evidence prevents me from accepting your claims as true". It is atheists who say "I don't believe in deities". It is true that most atheists are skeptics, but they are still separate things.

Note that atheism is the same in both your examples.
Doesn't matter the methodology, or lack thereof, by which it is derived.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Note that atheism is the same in both your examples.

Note that they aren't the same. Atheism is just a lack of belief in deities with no justification or reasoning behind it.

 

[Desert Snake]

Note that they aren't the same. Atheism is just a lack of belief in deities with no justification or reasoning behind it.

However one derives, that they don't believe in god or gods, that is atheism.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

However one derives, that they don't believe in god or gods, that is atheism.

Correct. Someone could be an atheist because dog poo smells bad, or for no reason at all. That is atheism.

Skepticism, on the other hand, is an epistemology, a way of determining truth. It is not atheism. Skepticism may lead to conclusions like, "There isn't any convincing evidence that Bigfoot exists," or, "There isn't any convincing evidence that the JFK assassination was carried out by multiple people". Although the vast majority of atheists are atheists because of skepticism, they still aren't the same thing.

 

[Desert Snake]

Skepticism, on the other hand, is an epistemology, a way of determining truth. It is not atheism. Skepticism may lead to conclusions like, "There isn't any convincing evidence that Bigfoot exists," or, "There isn't any convincing evidence that the JFK assassination was carried out by multiple people". Although the vast majority of atheists are atheists because of skepticism, they still aren't the same thing.

Didn't say they were, or even imply that.

 

[Desert Snake]

I know it is a lack of belief. the rest of your statement is not even relevant.

Not the premise. You have derived atheism, from whatever, so it doesn't matter if it is a lack of belief, or not. Read the premise again.

 

[Milton Platt]

Not the premise. You have derived atheism, from whatever, so it doesn't matter if it is a lack of belief, or not. Read the premise again.

Oh, I get it now.....as the evening wears on, my reading comprehension declines.
Yes, atheism is not opposed to a god, just a lack of belief in it's existence.

 

[Willamena]

If you think that your atheism is non belief, concerning a belief, then it does not inherently make your non belief, oppositional, to the belief.

Then what does "non" mean?

 

[Willamena]

Yes, atheism is not opposed to a god, just a lack of belief in it's existence.

I'd bet good money that that god would object strongly to that premise.