Atheism does not exist

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You know I find this argument utterly unconvincing. It places an above-ordinary expectation for precision in the definition, which simply doesn't exist for any other word. All of us here have a general understanding of what a god concept is. Whether you know every specific example of a god is irrelevant, just like you don't need to have personal experience with every breed of dog to know whether you like dogs or not.

I hope you realize that you're talking to someone who likes to tell people "it's not that you don't like beer; it's that you haven't liked any of the ones you've tried so far."

 

[Falvlun]

Opinions are a sub-set of beliefs, but they aren't just beliefs.

If opinions are a sub-set of beliefs, that means that all opinions are beliefs, but not all beliefs are opinions. That's precisely my stance.

How does saying "I don't know the probability" entail "they are just as likely"? That makes no sense.

Because that's the "default".

But seriously, If you don't know something and you have no opinion either way, that makes all possibilities are equally likely.

Regardless, you have claimed that you don't know what the probabilities are. I'm not interested in your knowledge. Do you also claim not to have beliefs over the probabilities? You don't believe god's non-existence more likely than his existence?

I've already just gone through this. A belief is "holding a proposition to be true", this is REGARDLESS of the reasons for it. An opinion is a belief that you accept is either subjective or just as valid as another contradicting view, or one for which there isn't an objective answer. For example, you can believe that 2+3=5, but 2+3=5 isn't a matter of opinion.

So, we both agree that opinions are beliefs.

 

[Falvlun]

There is no such thing as a default position.

Yes there is.

As I have asked the Monk of Reason, how do you know it is the default? Is this a belief of yours?

Now you're just playing games. The default position applies to a specific response to a specific claim. I hold lots of beliefs about lots of different things, but with regards to the specific claim "a God exists" I hold the default position of a lack of belief.

Not playing games at all. I don't believe in default positions. I am legitimately interested in how you know not only that there is a default position, but what it happens to be.

I think it is meaningless to talk about beliefs and positions before people are capable of having them.

And once people are capable of having them, I think there would a myriad of "default positions" based upon individual personality, inclinations, talents, environment, etc.

 

[Falvlun]

Your argument boils down to "I don't want babies to be atheists". You've not made a convincing argument yourself. My argument is that it's what the word literally means, which is far stronger than "I don't want to use that definition because I don't like the though of such a thing as a default position".

What the word literally means? Since when are definitions solely and inextricably linked to what the word literally means?

I mean, if we are going with literal meanings, then I guess an atheist is someone without a theist.

I am interested in the usefulness of the definition, in the greater precision of a word to impart meaning. I am interested in how people utilize words in normal conversation. I am not interested in breaking down a word into its component parts and forcing that definition as the "correct" one, just because ImmortalFlame claims that it should be.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not playing games at all. I don't believe in default positions. I am legitimately interested in how you know not only that there is a default position, but what it happens to be.

I think it is meaningless to talk about beliefs and positions before people are capable of having them.

And once people are capable of having them, I think there would a myriad of "default positions" based upon individual personality, inclinations, talents, environment, etc.

FWIW, from what I've gathered from reading and listening to stuff from various psychological researchers, it seems that we're born with a tendency to infer agency and deliberate purpose in just about everything, but without any good ideas about what agency (or whether there would only be one agency) behind things. All in all, I'd say that the evidence suggests that our psychological default position is a sort of rudimentary animism that probably couldn't be considered actual theism.

However, this is different from the idea of a philosophical default position. When it comes to that, there are three possibilities for dealing with claims without evidence (or that don't have sufficient evidence):

- tentatively accept all of them. This isn't viable, since it would mean accepting conflicting claims simultaneously.
- tentatively accept some while rejecting others. This one is untenable too, since it's arbitrary (it has to be, since we're talking about claims with insufficient evidence to judge them).
- tentatively reject all of them. This one is the only strategy that doesn't create logical problems.

 

[Falvlun]

No, you just clearly dodged the analogy with that silly argument about how "people wouldn't talk that way". Now you've answered the argument and made it perfectly clear that you do not understand how to differentiate the absence of a belief from a contradictory claim, clearly illustrating that the problem lies with you.

My argument has everything to do with how people utilize words. The problem that I have with your stance is that it does not follow the normal meaning of words and phrases.

So the fact that your analogy did precisely that made it a poster child for everything that I find wrong about your position.

I don't think it is silly to expect arguments to be based on the common usage of words and the meanings of phrases, rather than exploit uncommon and seldom used interpretations.

 

[Falvlun]

I hope you realize that you're talking to someone who likes to tell people "it's not that you don't like beer; it's that you haven't liked any of the ones you've tried so far."

I applaud such a noble sentiment :drunk:

But I wonder, do you think that it would be rational for the person to claim, "I lack a belief regarding whether I like beer or not" simply because they might one day encounter a beer they do like?

If that were the case, we would have to indefinitely postpone any and all beliefs till the day that we have experienced everything.

 

[Falvlun]

FWIW, from what I've gathered from reading and listening to stuff from various psychological researchers, it seems that we're born with a tendency to infer agency and deliberate purpose in just about everything, but without any good ideas about what agency (or whether there would only be one agency) behind things. All in all, I'd say that the evidence suggests that our psychological default position is a sort of rudimentary animism that probably couldn't be considered actual theism.

That's what I've heard too. It's quite comfortably fuzzy, ain't it? Not quite theism but not quite atheism either. And I doubt that every child experiences this tendency in the exact same strength too.

However, this is different from the idea of a philosophical default position. When it comes to that, there are three possibilities for dealing with claims without evidence (or that don't have sufficient evidence):

- tentatively accept all of them. This isn't viable, since it would mean accepting conflicting claims simultaneously.
- tentatively accept some while rejecting others. This one is untenable too, since it's arbitrary (it has to be, since we're talking about claims with insufficient evidence to judge them).
- tentatively reject all of them. This one is the only strategy that doesn't create logical problems.

I can see the argument for the third possibility, but that doesn't make it the default. That just makes it the most rational choice. I think most people likely choose the second.

 

[Falvlun]

I think it matters whats being claimed and what evidence is being used. If you told me about the invisible unicorn in my room I dont have a belief in it one way or another and then agnostic doesnt work because im not going to weigh it against the infinite other invisible things that may be in my room. As if I need a belief in no invisible things just from someone stating the possibility.

I'm confused. Are you claiming that you don't have a belief either way about the unicorn in your room? Because I definitely don't believe that there are unicorns in my room.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I applaud such a noble sentiment :drunk:

But I wonder, do you think that it would be rational for the person to claim, "I lack a belief regarding whether I like beer or not" simply because they might one day encounter a beer they do like?

If that were the case, we would have to indefinitely postpone any and all beliefs till the day that we have experienced everything.

I think you're confusing a couple of different issues here. Defining atheism as mere lack of belief in gods doesn't mean that atheists can't go beyond this and actively believe that gods don't exist.

As an analogy, it isn't necessary to be patriotic to be an American citizen, but this doesn't mean that patriotic people can't be American citizens.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's what I've heard too. It's quite comfortably fuzzy, ain't it? Not quite theism but not quite atheism either. And I doubt that every child experiences this tendency in the exact same strength too.

If it's "not quite theism", then it's under the umbrella of atheism.

I can see the argument for the third possibility, but that doesn't make it the default. That just makes it the most rational choice. I think most people likely choose the second.

What I mean by "philosophical default" is a choice that creates no logical issues or contradictions. I realize that many (most?) people hold positions with logical issues and contradictions.

 

[NIX]

Belief/Believing in 'god/s' is an action. It is an activity.
It is something some individuals do. (Verb)

Saying "I don't believe in gods" is really no different in nature than saying "I don't drive a stick shift" or "I don't eat brussel sprouts" or "I don't swim in lakes".
There are many varried reasons that all of these statements may be true, for any given individual, but bottom line if a person REALLY wanted to, or needed to, or even just had a compelling personal reason to do any of these things- they would.
And if they don't, they won't.

Much adu about nothing really.

 

[steeltoes]

Belief/Believing in 'god/s' is an action. It is an activity.
It is something some individuals do. (Verb)

Saying "I don't believe in gods" is really no different in nature than saying "I don't drive a stick shift" or "I don't eat brussel sprouts" or "I don't swim in lakes".
There are many varried reasons that all of these statements may be true, for any given individual, but bottom line if a person REALLY wanted to, or needed to, or even just had a compelling personal reason to do any of these things- they would.
And if they don't, they won't.

Much adu about nothing really.

Yes, it is much ado about nothing.

I think the attempt here is to put atheism on the same playing field as theism so that atheism can be subjected to the same criticism that theism is subjected to by non-believers, such as believing things for which there is no evidence of. It's not working much to the chagrin and the persistence of the theist. :slap:

 

[idav]

Consider a few claims:

- I had a pound of cheddar cheese for breakfast
- I had leftover pizza for breakfast
- I had cereal for breakfast
- I had French toast for breakfast
- I had granola bars for breakfast
- I didn't have breakfast

Do you accept all of them? If not, what are your reasons for rejecting the ones you didn't accept?

You ate all of them, quite the breakfast you had.

There can be only one.

 

[idav]

I'm confused. Are you claiming that you don't have a belief either way about the unicorn in your room? Because I definitely don't believe that there are unicorns in my room.

I would choose not to consider all the possible invisible entities that may or may not be in my my vicinity. This is the problem with the god concept when the theist would insist in it's existence yet don't see anything worth considering when someone says god is watching. I will maintain the default belief that nothing invisible in my room until I have reason to consider otherwise and someone just telling me it's there isn't enough to consider it.

 

[Falvlun]

I think you're confusing a couple of different issues here. Defining atheism as mere lack of belief in gods doesn't mean that atheists can't go beyond this and actively believe that gods don't exist.

As an analogy, it isn't necessary to be patriotic to be an American citizen, but this doesn't mean that patriotic people can't be American citizens.

I know that. I just do not see the benefit or usefulness of defining atheism as a mere lack of belief, especially since it muddies the waters by including people that shouldn't be included and is contrary to how the word is used in the general population.

EDIT: I forgot the other half of what I was going to say.

My response regarding the beer was regarding your position (I think?) that you won't claim to have the belief that gods don't exist since you haven't encountered every possible god concept and there might be one out there that you do accept.

If we applied that criteria to everything, then we wouldn't be able to have very many beliefs. And in fact, I doubt that you apply that criteria to many other beliefs that you do have.

 

[Falvlun]

I would choose not to consider all the possible invisible entities that may or may not be in my my vicinity. This is the problem with the god concept when the theist would insist in it's existence yet don't see anything worth considering when someone says god is watching. I will maintain the default belief that nothing invisible in my room until I have reason to consider otherwise and someone just telling me it's there isn't enough to consider it.

Ok, so you do have a belief that there is nothing invisible in your room. Do you also have the "default belief" that gods do not exist?

 

[Falvlun]

If it's "not quite theism", then it's under the umbrella of atheism.

Based upon your definition of atheism. Though I think even that could be argued: can you categorically say that these agency things aren't god enough?

What I mean by "philosophical default" is a choice that creates no logical issues or contradictions. I realize that many (most?) people hold positions with logical issues and contradictions.

Personally, I don't think rejecting every claim is really any less arbitrary then choosing to accept some and reject some.

And it could create logical issues too, such as if you reject both the claim that there are no black dogs and the claim that there are some black dogs.

Regardless, this "philosophical default" really isn't what people are talking about when they claim that not believing in gods is the default. They are talking a psychological default.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

He told me that an atheist is someone who reject god or the existence of god and how can one reject what they cannot prove exist yet alone prove does not exist. So by declaring oneself an atheist he or she is making a logical absurdity.

Well, his definition is wrong.

Hence no such thing as atheism occurs in the normal sense. Atheists often take a strong stance saying "god does not exist".

I would say that about 90% of the people identifying themselves as atheist would reject this notion (at least here at RF)

I believe the only proper way of making a logical definition for atheism is to change the definition itself. It is definition by many sources implies the absolute denial of a god. But by denying something unproven it stands at criticism.

You don't need to change the definition. There is already a well established definition for atheism.

I would like to ask and encourage atheist to provide a proper definition of atheism as it is HEAVILY misused and often contradicts itself when used improperly. The definitive key point though is how can one keep it separate from agnosticism.

[A-theism] - without a belief in god.

Theist: There is a god.
Atheist: I don't believe you.

But also if this is not the case and it cannot be differed from agnosticism then

Gnosis - knowledge in Greek
Agnosis - without knowledge

An agnostic says that it can never be known whether a god exists or not.
You can be an agnostic atheist or a gnostic atheist. It doesn't matter.
But atheism is certainly NOT to be confused with agnosticism.

Atheism deals with belief and Agnosticism deals with knowledge.

 

[Willamena]

I've repeatedly and clearly explained that atheism is a lack of belief, and that babies lack a belief, therefore babies are atheists. What's the problem?

Babies (like rocks) lack the capacity to consider the proposition, "God exists," around which theism, and hence atheism, lie.

You can't "lack" something that doesn't exist.