Atheism is a faith

[Jeremiah]

If you want to discuss my theology, there's a thread linked in my sig for that purpose. It's off-topic here. It doesn't matter what God-concept we're talking about.

Defining God is not off topic here. In fact unless the word carries some definition it is nothing but a word. If it is but a word then your debate is pointless.

"It doesn't matter what God-concept we're talking about."

O yes it does. Not all notions of God(s) are equal.

 

[Storm]

Defining God is not off topic here. In fact unless the word carries some definition it is nothing but a word. If it is but a word then your debate is pointless.

OK, whatever. Pick one.

"It doesn't matter what God-concept we're talking about."

O yes it does. Not all notions of God(s) are equal.

But my understanding is that the atheist rejects them all equally, so I really don't see the difference.

 

[Jeremiah]

OK, whatever. Pick one.


But my understanding is that the atheist rejects them all equally, so I really don't see the difference.

I might work up a response. To be honest I am a little tired of this thread.

"atheist rejects them all equally"

You are generalizing.

 

[Storm]

I might work up a response. To be honest I am a little tired of this thread.

"atheist rejects them all equally"

You are generalizing.

Mistaken, perhaps, but not generalizing. If you believe the former, please, correct me.

 

[Jeremiah]

Mistaken, perhaps, but not generalizing. If you believe the former, please, correct me.

Ok, mistaken than. Btw do you like all the snow?

 

[Storm]

Ok, mistaken than.

Then, I ask again, please correct me. I do try to defer to the adherents of a worldview.

Btw do you like all the snow?

Eh, it's pretty enough from the inside, but makes for difficulty in travel. Might interfere with my Christmas visit with my son, too.

Are you in the PNW?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Here's another take on the idea of atheism being a matter of faith or not.

Something occurred to me the other day: "God" is a human concept, or rather, a set of human concepts. Atheism can be seen as rejection of these concepts. Even if any of these human concepts have a coincidental similarity to undiscovered things that actually exist, if the concepts aren't rooted in those things, then the concepts themselves can't be considered true.

Typically, one response to atheism is to say that atheism implicitly claims knowledge about what can't be known, and there might be some deity out there somewhere, undetectable, hiding, or on some other plane of existence beyond our ken. However, a deity that shows no indication of its existence whatsoever can't be the object of a claim about its existence, can it?

To use an analogy, consider the claim, "Charles Dickens wrote The Hunt for Red October". I would immediately declare the claim to be false. Would it be valid to rebut my declaration by saying that the claim might possibly be true, since in a universe as large as ours, there might be some creature, entity or collective on some far-flung planet named Charles Dickens, and he/she/it/they might have written some work entitled "The Hunt for Red October"?

I'd argue that this would not be valid. I suppose in an infinitely large universe (or even in a finite universe about which our knowledge is limited), there is always a very small but non-zero chance that any particular part of it might be occupied by some sort of "Charles Dickens" writing some sort of "Hunt for Red October" until we look and see what's actually there, but none of those hypothetical Charles Dickenses would have been the particular Charles Dickens implicit in the original claim.

In the same way, no matter what exists out in the universe beyond our current knowledge, if nobody on Earth knew about it, it couldn't have been the subject of the claim "God exists".

 

[Storm]

Here's another take on the idea of atheism being a matter of faith or not. [snip]

And an interesting take it is!

I can't help but rebut, though. It ignores the reality that God is writ into human nature. Earlier, I said that my marvelling at this was never intended to be an argument for God's existence, and I still don't mean it that way. However, it does make God more difficult to reject out of hand as clearly false. While no fact is ever 100% proven, not all claims are equal.

It is possible that mystical experiences are truly glimpses of another level of reality, and there is no evidence against this. There's not even a respectable philosophical argument in opposition (not that I've heard, anyway).

In short, I jsut don't think that any of these comparisons are adequate.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

not finished, sorry

My argument, or your response?

 

[Jeremiah]

Then, I ask again, please correct me. I do try to defer to the adherents of a worldview.


Eh, it's pretty enough from the inside, but makes for difficulty in travel. Might interfere with my Christmas visit with my son, too.

Are you in the PNW?

"Then, I ask again, please correct me. I do try to defer to the adherents of a worldview."

Well you said atheist instead of atheism. That's were I got the notion you were generalizing. I can't really speak for all atheist so I don't know how they view different god concepts. As for me I have more respect for some notions of God then others. So I don't really treat them all equally. Some of them I reject out right while others I overlook validation. To be honest I don't really care about proving God or disproving God. I do have an interest in religion so I pay attention to the various gods and their effect on people. So some gods I dismiss and some I reject. When I dismiss a god I am saying "I don't care if that god is real or not; that detail is not important." When I reject a God then I have some reason for doing so.


"Are you in the PNW?"

I am guessing NW means north west? I am in Beaverton.

 

[Storm]

My argument, or your response?

My response. I hit post before I was done, and didn't want you to answer before I finished editing. Look again.

 

[Storm]

"Then, I ask again, please correct me. I do try to defer to the adherents of a worldview."

Well you said atheist instead of atheism. That's were I got the notion you were generalizing. I can't really speak for all atheist so I don't know how they view different god concepts.

Oops, you're right. Sorry about that.

As for me I have more respect for some notions of God then others. So I don't really treat them all equally. Some of them I reject out right while others I overlook validation.

You lost me. What do you mean by "overlook validation?"

To be honest I don't really care about proving God or disproving God. I do have an interest in religion so I pay attention to the various gods and their effect on people. So some gods I dismiss and some I reject. When I dismiss a god I am saying "I don't care if that god is real or not; that detail is not important." When I reject a God then I have some reason for doing so.

What's the difference between rejection and dismissal?

"Are you in the PNW?"

I am guessing NW means north west?

Yeah, Pacific Northwest.

I am in Beaverton.

Cool. We could meet up, if you wanted to.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

And an interesting take it is!

I can't help but rebut, though. It ignores the reality that God is writ into human nature.

In what way?

I got to thinking about all this while listening to a podcast debate between a theist and an atheist. The point was raised that atheism is really a response to theism. That flipped a switch in my head: in that light, arguing that the atheist hasn't accounted for the possibility of some God that might be lurking out there unseen is kind of like saying "hey, atheist! You don't have any response to the idea that nobody's thought of yet! Gotcha!" Well, of course: there's no such thing as a response to a non-existent claim.

Now, personally, I define atheism (as well as theism) in terms of belief, not proof, so the point is kinda moot except when it's brought up by theists, but my main point is that when we consider atheism to be a response to theism, it doesn't necessarily have to worry about unconceptualized god-concepts.

Of course, this doesn't touch on god-concepts that have been actualized; those have to be argued on their merits, which is where I think your claims about mystical experiences come in. They deal with actual concepts, not non-existent, hypothetical concepts.

 

[Storm]

In what way?

I got to thinking about all this while listening to a podcast debate between a theist and an atheist. The point was raised that atheism is really a response to theism. In that light, arguing that the atheist hasn't accounted for the possibility of some God that might be lurking out there unseen is kind of like saying "hey, atheist! You don't have any response to the idea that nobody's thought of yet! Gotcha!" Well, of course: there's no such thing as a response to a non-existent claim.

I'm beginning to get confused, so I'm bringing my own beliefs in as an example, ok? I'll try to keep it brief.

1) I believe that mystical experiences perceive God
2) I also believe that God is ineffable, beyond all hope of comprehension.

Is this a "non-existent claim?"

Now, personally, I define atheism (as well as theism) in terms of belief, not proof, so the point is kinda moot except when it's brought up by theists, but my main point is that when we consider atheism to be a response to theism, it doesn't necessarily have to worry about unconceptualized god-concepts.

So... would you agree with my position that strong atheism is a belief unsupported by evidence?

Of course, this doesn't touch on god-concepts that have been actualized; those have to be argued on their merits, which is where I think your claims about mystical experiences come in. They deal with actual concepts, not non-existent, hypothetical concepts.

Again, I ask whether the concept of God being ineffable is actualized or hypothetial.

 

[Jeremiah]

Oops, you're right. Sorry about that.


You lost me. What do you mean by "overlook validation?"


What's the difference between rejection and dismissal?


Yeah, Pacific Northwest.


Cool. We could meet up, if you wanted to.

"You lost me. What do you mean by "overlook validation?"
What's the difference between rejection and dismissal?"

A rejection is just saying "No that god does not exist objectively". But say I have a person that says to me "I know God is not rational and could not exist like that but I feel God" I can't really validated whether or not they actually feel God and since they have dragged it out of reason then I can not undue the god with reason. That person may or may not feel God I myself would not know one way or the other. But I can't feel the god so I overlook objective validation. But I also dismiss the god as I can't feel the god so that god does not exist to me on a subjective level. The actual objective existence of said god is really a moot point.

"Cool. We could meet up, if you wanted to."

That sounds fun. But I am pretty much homeward bound till the buses get back on track.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm beginning to get confused, so I'm bringing my own beliefs in as an example, ok? I'll try to keep it brief.

1) I believe that mystical experiences perceive God
2) I also believe that God is ineffable, beyond all hope of comprehension.

Is this a "non-existent claim?"

I don't think it is. It might not be as fully specific as other claims of God, but that doesn't make it non-existent.

Also, I would guess that if you consider the question "what makes God 'God'?", you may be able to state other beliefs you may have about God more explicitly. Do you think that (1) and (2) fully define God? Could there be things that meet both these criteria but are not God?

So... would you agree with my position that strong atheism is a belief unsupported by evidence?

No, I wouldn't.

In the first case, it does have evidence supporting it - I do acknowledge that there is evidence on both sides of the question; it's really a matter of how we interpret it to come to an overall judgement.

In the second case, I don't consider "atheism" to be a belief. There are certainly many beliefs that are atheistic, but atheism isn't a belief in and of itself.

Again, I ask whether the concept of God being ineffable is actualized or hypothetial.

I'd say that just by itself, the concept of God being ineffible is not a god-concept, however, it may be incorporated into a god-concept... as it seems it has been in your case.

 

[Storm]

"You lost me. What do you mean by "overlook validation?"
What's the difference between rejection and dismissal?"

A rejection is just saying "No that god does not exist objectively". But say I have a person that says to me "I know God is not rational and could not exist like that but I feel God" I can't really validated whether or not they actually feel God and since they have dragged it out of reason then I can not undue the god with reason. That person may or may not feel God I myself would not know one way or the other. But I can't feel the god so I overlook objective validation. But I also dismiss the god as I can't feel the god so that god does not exist to me on a subjective level. The actual objective existence of said god is really a moot point.

OK, now we're getting somewhere. My question becomes, how do you evaluate a God-concept objectively? There's no evidence for any of them one way or another, and I've yet to encounter a theology that couldn't refute logical objections.

"Cool. We could meet up, if you wanted to."

That sounds fun. But I am pretty much homeward bound till the buses get back on track.

Yeah, me too. Maybe once it thaws.

 

[Storm]

I don't think it is. It might not be as fully specific as other claims of God, but that doesn't make it non-existent.

OK, what would be an example of a non-existent claim?

Also, I would guess that if you consider the question "what makes God 'God'?", you may be able to state other beliefs you may have about God more explicitly.

Heh, I've got a whole thread devoted to that question somewhere around here.

As for explicit statements about God, my theology is quite developed (as I believe you are aware), but I never forget that I'm groping in the dark.

Do you think that (1) and (2) fully define God?

No. My God-concept is the roth - what someone cleverer than I dubbed "the liveing Godiverse."

Could there be things that meet both these criteria but are not God?

I believe that there are other roth, if that's what you mean. I just use "God" to refer to ours.

No, I wouldn't.

In the first case, it does have evidence supporting it - I do acknowledge that there is evidence on both sides of the question; it's really a matter of how we interpret it to come to an overall judgement.

OK. I tend to think "evidence" is something stronger, but it's not really an important point, provided you acknowledge that both sides are euqal. Which, I take it, you do.

In the second case, I don't consider "atheism" to be a belief. There are certainly many beliefs that are atheistic, but atheism isn't a belief in and of itself.

But that's the definition of strong atheism, as oposed to weak. I have yet to hear another that didn't render the distinction moot.

I'd say that just by itself, the concept of God being ineffible is not a god-concept, however, it may be incorporated into a god-concept... as it seems it has been in your case.

Fair enough.

 

[Jeremiah]

OK, now we're getting somewhere. My question becomes, how do you evaluate a God-concept objectively? There's no evidence for any of them one way or another, and I've yet to encounter a theology that couldn't refute logical objections.

"OK, now we're getting somewhere. My question becomes, how do you evaluate a God-concept objectively?"

I may have not been specific enough. But we can theorize the actuality of an objective god and debate the merits of these theories.

"I've yet to encounter a theology that couldn't refute logical objections."

See now there is a difference in perception. To me the Christians have yet to defend their god against the problem of evil. Also many gods fall at Occam's razor. But really the worth of these arguments are gonna be largely effected by the viewer.

 

[Storm]

"OK, now we're getting somewhere. My question becomes, how do you evaluate a God-concept objectively?"

I may have not been specific enough. But we can theorize the actuality of an objective god and debate the merits of these theories.

"I've yet to encounter a theology that couldn't refute logical objections."

See now there is a difference in perception. To me the Christians have yet to defend their god against the problem of evil. Also many gods fall at Occam's razor. But really the worth of these arguments are gonna be largely effected by the viewer.

Fair enough.