TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
No.
I flip a coin and hide the result.
I claim it is heads and ask if you believe my claim (ie: accept as true / accurate).
You say "no".
Does that mean you believe it's tails?
No.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheism is not a belief, so why would anyone lie that it is?
- Thread starter Sheldon
- Start date
No.
I flip a coin and hide the result.
I claim it is heads and ask if you believe my claim (ie: accept as true / accurate).
You say "no".
Does that mean you believe it's tails?
No.
Augustus
…
And therein lies the rub...
Existence/non-existence and guilt/innocence are not the same thing though (and even if they were, it would depend on how people conceptualise innocence - as you note "innocent until proven guilty" for example).
If you choose something should not go into the box of things that exist, and live your life on the assumption that such things don't exists, as you note there is no actual difference between the position of not believing exists and believing not exists.
The real distinction begins when one starts to account for the potential existence of X (or you start to treat the person differently because you doubt their innocence).
Absent that it's just a subjective preference in how to describe something abstract that can be described in multiple ways precisely because of its abstraction.
Yes, that's the point. You are consciously choosing to assume non-existence of gods until demonstrated otherwise (or to the extent of meaningful doubt). This is not the absence of a belief.
The way we view the world is that things we don't think exist, don't exist (conceptually in our minds).
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
That's very shallow black and white thinking.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
There's nothing special or extra-ordinary about it.
We also all live our lives as if no undetectable dragons are about to eat us.
Not because we positively believe that to not be the case.
Rather because we have no rational reason to believe that TO BE the case.
It's the null-hypothesis in a nutshell.
Atheism is the assumed default in the exact same way.
If you wish to call the null hypothesis a "belief", go right ahead.
I don't see how that has any meaning though.
To "believe" = to accept something as true / accurate.
I don't think that's an accurate way of describing the default stance / the null hypothesis.
It's an analogy.
I rule god "not guilty" of existing.
And that makes me an atheist.
It doesn't necessarily mean I believe god to be "innocent" of existing.
It just means that the case presented was insufficient to convince me of the claim of guilt.
Except that there is. I'm sorry that you seem unable to comprehend this difference.
You can go ahead and call the default stance / null hypothesis a "belief" if you like. I just don't see how that is meaningful in any way considering what the word "belief" means (to positively accept as true / accurate).
Except that it is.
Belief of a claim moves one away from the null hypothesis.
NOT believing a claim, does not.
I think that's not correctly formulated.
Rather, I'ld say: things we do NOT believe to exist, aren't treated as existent.
Just like when the accuser fails to adequately prove guilt of the accused, then the accused isn't treated as guilty. Which doesn't necessarily mean he is believed to be innocent.
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
Never denied this, and have been saying it all along. But you have been caught saying, specifically that the atheist position (or a person taking on that moniker) "believes (positively) that there is no God."
But not the one you kept insisting on, correct?
Yeah -good for you Augustus, I'm really happy for you. Who cares whether or not you care? Not me.
So here's one last question - ignore it if you will: a thought I came to regarding the idea that @Windwalker brought up about a juror being "agnostic" to the prospect of a defendant being either innocent or guilty. Is the agnostic position that they believe (positively) that one cannot claim to hold actual knowledge about the subject at hand, or merely that they "don't know" either way, and so do not hold such knowledge themselves. Because if it is that they do not believe it possible to hold the knowledge at all, then this doesn't apply to a juror - because they certainly understand that, given the correct evidence, they could be sure of one proposition or the other. Meaning that the question at hand (guilt or innocence) is understood to certainly have a valid and true answer. But in the case of the question of God's existence... wouldn't it be that someone who holds the belief that "it cannot be known" would necessarily reject any and all evidence presented as being implausible to have gathered in the first place? As in, wouldn't a position of "I don't believe you" actually be even closer to actually being able to accept evidence than the position: "I don't know, and do not believe it can be known?" Just something interesting I came to in my meanderings, and wanted some input from one who considers themselved "agnostic."
You just don't like that it is true. That's all. Seriously... that's why you're so very, very unhappy... and had to apparently turn to what I believe to one of the most ludicrous things anyone can post a SONG in response to something - as if that can have any relevance at all. Some completely unrelated person's subjective relay of something related to their experience that likely had nothing at all to do with the current situation. No wonder you're "agnostic" if you think this is what can constitute "evidence." I mean... seriously... I would be confused as hell as to whether or not I could understand ANYTHING AT ALL if I were to take every bit of imaginatively crafted media as potentially being a source of evidence.This is by far the most ludicrously pretentious statement I've ever seen hereKnock yourself out, champ!
I'm not a self-proclaimed theist. I don't exclude theism, nor do I exclude atheism. I would consider myself, if anything, a trans-theist, which includes trans-atheism as they are fraternal twins. Born of the same mother question, 'is there a God?'
I look more at the source of the question and what makes it a question. I see That, as beyond defining and beyond words. I think the Tao De Ching says my views perfectly well in the first chapter,
The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
The named is the mother of ten thousand things.
Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations.
These two spring from the same source but differ in name;
this appears as darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gate to all mystery.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name.
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth.
The named is the mother of ten thousand things.
Ever desireless, one can see the mystery.
Ever desiring, one can see the manifestations.
These two spring from the same source but differ in name;
this appears as darkness.
Darkness within darkness.
The gate to all mystery.
I look to, or rather open to the Source of the question. I seek not to name it, and if I do, it's is only meant as a pointer, not a definition.
Yes. I believe there is more to Reality than we can understand, and that as we are open to it, it can reveal itself to us, or rather we allow ourselves to see it as it is, without our imposing limitations upon is, such as both theistic thelogies go, and atheistic and materialist limitations do. If our system of filters says the world is this way only, it disallows for the Mystery to come through. That is as true for the theist as it is the atheist.
When we remain open, then we can see quite literally the miraculous. It is happening in every moment, but we normally only see what we think reality is. We limit the Mystery with our minds and belief systems. Or, those can aide in opening us, if they are held as pointers, rather than as limiters.
I don't rule that out. I personally might envision it differently, but that is not to say another way of envisioning is untrue. I see that how we think about it, is just a tool for the mind to see beyond its limitations. This is the nature of metaphor, symbols of transformation. It's not about how we think about it, or how we talk about it, but what it opens us to that matters. If what it opens us to is connection and love, then it carries us to truth, regardless of how we think about it.
I'm sure if I were still an atheist I would.
Or if I still were an indoctrinated theist I would to. Beliefs have a way of shutting us off from Truth, if we take them literally. Theists and atheists tend to suffer from that same malady of literalism.Willingness.
I don't see my understandings of these things to be 'superior word definitions'. I will consider them to be a deeper understanding, yes. A definition is a limitation. To try to understand what is behind words, should be the pursuit of anyone interested in exploring the Mystery of life and existence.
Defining it into what can be contained into a book, is the malady of both the religious believer with his Bible, and "God said, I believe it, that settles it for me" approach. As well as quite a few atheists who quote the dictionary the same way, "Webster's says it, I believe it, that settles it for me". As the saying goes, "you can take the boy out of the country, but you can't take the country out of the boy," it seems.
As far as variations of types of atheists, I have no problem with that. It's a spectrum of beliefs and points of view, as much as it is for theists. What they do all have in common however, is a definition of what God is which they either all believe in, or disbelieve in, wherever they fall on that spectrum of belief. In fact, I'd say it's a single spectrum called Belief, and atheism and theism are part of that single continuum.
I wholly reject the claim that everyone has to be include on that spectrum. If they don't know the question, they are excluded. They remain open, unaffected. They are the innocent. They are the proverbial child, who remains open to the Mystery.
I am not asking you to "believe" what I say. Only that you consider it and let it take you where you let it. It's not about believing. It's about moving beyond beliefs.
Augustus
…
A belief is also an attitude towards a proposition.
If you can comprehend the sentence 'gods exist', you hold a belief regarding it.
This is not a neutral 'default' position (as ignorance would be), it is an epistemic stance you have adopted.
What you are describing is a decision to disbelieve in the existence of gods, and that is obviously an attitude towards a proposition and therefore a belief.
Surely you can understand that that is can be a legitimate, good faith way to view the issue, even if you think your view is better.
Abba Eban on the perils of analogy, "This apple is round, red, shiny, and good to eat. This rubber ball is round, red and shiny. Therefore, there is at least a strong probability that it will be good to eat. The basic truth is that circumstances in which situations differ from each other may precisely be those that define their essential nature."
Yes, there is a linguistic difference. No one has been able to point out any other kind of difference.
I'm happy with that, as it makes no practical difference. You choose to not treat gods as existent as a result of your beliefs.
Same as me.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
No I was just reiterating the point, sorry if that wasn't clear.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
In other words: "I believe that I don't believe that a god exists"?
Yeah, ok, sure, "i believe that I don't believe".
And I also "believe that I believe that I don't believe" - and I believe that as well.
I think that with that, we're done here.
You "win".
For crying out loud...................
Augustus
…
Or in other words, you disbelieve in the existence of gods which is how many dictionaries describe atheism. This would be slightly less linguistically awkward and, as an added bonus, would mean you didn't need to 'quadruple facepalm' your own error in comprehension
Sheldon
Veteran Member
I'm not using confirmation bias at all, though I'd accept a man as complex as Russel can't be reduced to a small post, and I originally quoted your own post, so if it didn't say what you wanted it to, that's hardly my fault. However he seemed pretty clear that he had to be agnostic about some god claims but not others, and was also an atheist. Again here is the quote from your own post...
Last edited:
Sheldon
Veteran Member
No that's your confirmation bias, as I never claimed that straw man you've created. I didn't say atheist and agnostic are the same, nor did Russel in that quote of yours. I said they are not mutually exclusive, I am an agnostic about all unfalsifiable claims, this must necessarily include unfalsifiable god claims, I also disbelieve all unfalsifiable claims, as they are meaningless, in science such claims are often described as "not even wrong".
Sheldon
Veteran Member
No I don't agree, seriously read my posts.
Agnosticism is a belief that nothing is known or can be known about god, though the term has wider applications than god claims, and I would say it necessarily applied to all unfalsifiable claims, NB note that not all god claims are unfalsifiable.
Whereas in its broadest sense atheism is defined as the lack or absence of belief in any deity. Which describes my atheism. Those definitions mean they are not mutually exclusive. I can both admit that a claim is unfalsifiable and disbelieve it, indeed I can and have argued that is the only rational way I can treat unfalsifiable claims, since believing them would inevitably mean believing contradictory claims, and believing without any evidence, while believing one or some, and not others would be obviously biased and therefore closed minded.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
Closed minded bias often is very clear.
My atheism is not a belief, and no one gets to tell me what I think or believe because they don't like their core beliefs being held up to critical scrutiny.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
Thank you, and they need not be mutually exclusive.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
I think one of the problems is that most theists view their belief as the most important they hold, and can't understand that to an atheist my lack of belief in any deity, has no more significance than my disbelief in unicorns or mermaids, or yetis.
If religions had no influence in the world, or their influence were innocuous I'd probably never even engage on the topic. However I don't think ripping off morality from patriarchal bronze age Bedouins is innocuous or harmless, and insisting a deity wants whatever one of its adherents claims is not just a pernicious idea, it's inherently flawed if one cares that all humans should have the same basic human rights.
Augustus
…
Given your vocal complaints in this thread, it's quite ironic that you are now claiming to better understand what Bertrand Russell though than Bertrand Russell himself
Are Agnostics Atheists?
No. An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial.
Bertrand Russell - What is an Agnostic
(Written in 1953, when Bertie was in his 80s)
As I said, those who cry fallacy loudest and most frequently are the least competent at using them correctly.
The claim was about what Bertrand Russell meant when he used those terms in that specific context. That is clearly stated above, for all the world to see - an atheist claims we can know, an agnostic that we cannot.
He was using the words differently to how many people would use them today, sure. But they are pretty clear
Sheldon
Veteran Member
disbelieve
verb
- be unable to believe.
Sheldon
Veteran Member
I agree, the classic example of this kind of sophistry using loaded questions would be "Do you still beat your wife?" Wording a question in such a way as to limit responses to only the answers you want isn't very compelling, it simply exhibits bias.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Such a poor argument. No definition is written in stone. And the meaning of "atheism" has changed over the years. Also the way that atheists, those that one should turn to for the best definition, has changed over the years. One person alone cannot define a term. That may be Bertrand Russell's definition. It does not hold or apply to all atheists. Other atheists have used the "lack of belief" definition for over a hundred years.Given your vocal complaints in this thread, it's quite ironic that you are now claiming to better understand what Bertrand Russell though than Bertrand Russell himself
Are Agnostics Atheists?
No. An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial.
Bertrand Russell - What is an Agnostic
(Written in 1953, when Bertie was in his 80s)
As I said, those who cry fallacy loudest and most frequently are the least competent at using them correctly.
The claim was about what Bertrand Russell meant when he used those terms in that specific context. That is clearly stated above, for all the world to see - an atheist claims we can know, an agnostic that we cannot.
He was using the words differently to how many people would use them today, sure. But they are pretty clear
Did you know that for some strange reason Christians resist the idea of people of other faiths defining their religion for them