Is atheism a belief?

[Link]

In other words, his "proof" is a moral argument (ethos) and not logic (logos). "For things to be just, God must exist." or "Morals must be absolute and God is that absolute."

There is strong version of the moral argument most people aren't ware of.

True guidance is God's guidance.
True guidance exists.

Therefore God exists.

Another way to phrase it is, morality is a true guidance to love, the only way for true guidance to exist is through God. Morality in an objective sense exists. Therefore God exists.

There is an elaboration and proof to those two premises and how we can know it.

But as intuitive as the moral argument is, it's my least favorite.

 

[LuisDantas]

It proves God, if there is a burden of proof for believers (And there is), there is also a burden of disbelievers to listen.

It's a two way street.

No, it actually isn't.

Why would you think that it is?

There are two reasons why there is no such symetry. One is the unavoidably personal nature of god-beliefs (and their variations, alternatives and absence). The other is that theism is a positive claim and as such requires evidence of comparable strength. Meanwhile, atheism is a simple statement of absence and as such requires no evidence whatsoever.

 

[Link]

No, it actually isn't.

Why would you think that it is?

There are two reasons why there is no such symetry. One is the unavoidably personal nature of god-beliefs (and their variations, alternatives and absence). The other is that theism is a positive claim and as such requires evidence of comparable strength. Meainwhile, atheism is a simple statement of absence and requires no evidence whatsoever.

If there is strong proofs for God's existence and Atheists choose not to listen, is it Theists fault in this case, even if many of them present such proofs?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It proves God, if there is a burden of proof for believers (And there is), there is also a burden of disbelievers to listen.

No, there really isn't.

If you want my attention, it's up to you to justify why it would be worth my time to listen.

 

[Link]

No, there really isn't.

If you want my attention, it's up to you to justify why it would be worth my time to listen.

Then there isn't a burden of proof. I can say you should prove yourself worthy of being taught, before I waste my time.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If there is strong proofs for God's existence and Atheists choose not to listen, is it Theists fault in this case, even if many of them present such proofs?

I've never seen a strong proof for God.

What I have seen is many theists flounder around with shoddy arguments that they say are strong proofs.

If they actually have strong proofs but are just inept at expressing them, then yes: it's their fault.

 

[ratiocinator]

Because who we are truly exists, we have an accurate reality to who we are, and that's impossible by virtue it's a psychological construct and relies on a perceived assessment to not have a perception seeing us exactly as we are.

Well that's neatly circular. How do you know "who we are truly" exists in the "psychological construct" sense. What if we are simply systems that imperfectly perceive ourselves?

No argument for any of the thousands of gods here, let alone proof of any of them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then there isn't a burden of proof.

Of course there is.

I can say you should prove yourself worthy of being taught, before I waste my time.

Based on your behaviour so far, if you decided not to "teach" me, I would count myself fortunate.

 

[Willamena]

It does add to the word.
It tells you that next to not believing in gods, the person is also actively claiming to believe / know that there is no god.

It's essentially the difference between strong and weak atheism.

Atheism is "not believing in gods." No one claims that there are no gods who isn't just expressing a belief. If I say, "There are no gods!" that's a belief, not knowledge. Knowledge applies only were there are things to know.

It adds nothing to atheism.

 

[Audie]

Atheism is unjustified aversion from the truth of our nature, the proofs around us, the design of irreducibly complex systems in biology, earth, and universe, as well good philosophical proofs and reminders of God, and aversion from the holy books that prove God.

Poe? If so you are kind of overdoing it.

 

[Ouroboros]

There is strong version of the moral argument most people aren't ware of.

True guidance is God's guidance.
True guidance exists.

Therefore God exists.

I don't agree. There's no "True guidance" as such.

Any syllogistic argument is based on premises that have to be agreed on. Just having a syllogism doesn't make it so.

Another way to phrase it is, morality is a true guidance to love, the only way for true guidance to exist is through God. Morality in an objective sense exists. Therefore God exists.

Yeah, I still don't agree. Morality as a concept does exist in an objective sense, but that's not an argument for God. Morality exists, but it's an emergent product of social norms and agreements, so it exists objectively, but the content of morality isn't necessarily objective. Most of morality is based on necessity in itself. Necessary ideas for survival of the group.

Besides, God has been quite poor in giving us proper guidance for his "absolute morality", which points to a flawed God. God is like a bad parent that guides through "because I said so" instead of "because of reasons."

There is an elaboration and proof to those two premises and how we can know it.

But as intuitive as the moral argument is, it's my least favorite.

It's not intuitive unless you already are primed for the thinking of absolutes.

 

[Link]

I've never seen a strong proof for God.

What I have seen is many theists flounder around with shoddy arguments that they say are strong proofs.

If they actually have strong proofs but are just inept at expressing them, then yes: it's their fault.

What is the case that disbelievers are unwilling to change or believe? What if they aren't willing to try to understand? What if Atheists are making too much noise and never try to really understand?

Your testimony doesn't imply there isn't, just as my testimony there are proofs for God doesn't imply there is.

I being convinced that certain arguments prove God doesn't make them prove God nor you being unconvinced make them not do what they are supposed to do.


Atheists haven't proven themselves to be more sincere to the truth than others nor are they be to relied on to assess how strong an argument is.

Theists also are not proofs that the proofs of God are true.

What is not useful is denying premises without any reasons and not elaborating why. Anyone can deny anything. That leaves no room for dialogue.

 

[ratiocinator]

True guidance is God's guidance.
True guidance exists.

Therefore God exists.

"True guidance" is subjective, so your premisses are logically meaningless.

Morality in an objective sense exists.

Where is the evidence? How is it objectively defined?

 

[Link]

I don't agree. There's no "True guidance" as such.

Any syllogistic argument is based on premises that have to be agreed on. Just having a syllogism doesn't make it so.


Yeah, I still don't agree. Morality as a concept does exist in an objective sense, but that's not an argument for God. Morality exists, but it's an emergent product of social norms and agreements, so it exists objectively, but the content of morality isn't necessarily objective. Most of morality is based on necessity in itself. Necessary ideas for survival of the group.

Besides, God has been quite poor in giving us proper guidance for his "absolute morality", which points to a flawed God. God is like a bad parent that guides through "because I said so" instead of "because of reasons."


It's not intuitive unless you already are primed for the thinking of absolutes.

I said elaboration is possible but have not elaborated. So yes, the premises weren't proven. I said so myself. None the less, I believe I can easily prove these premises to be true.

 

[Link]

"True guidance" is subjective, so your premisses are logically meaningless.



Where is the evidence? How is it objectively defined?

I haven't elaborated. You know both premises are meaningless when I Said I have not elaborated but they can be elaborated on?

You guys rely too much on ignorance.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What is the case that disbelievers are unwilling to change or believe?

In this case: your attitude and behaviour. That's really it.

 

[ratiocinator]

Said I have not elaborated but they can be elaborated on?

I've heard the argument from objective morality before and nothing I've seen has persuaded me that objective morality exists - but elaborate away...

You guys rely too much on ignorance.

How do you know? Nothing that you've said so far has been both coherent and new to me.

 

[Ouroboros]

I said elaboration is possible but have not elaborated. So yes, the premises weren't proven. I said so myself. None the less, I believe I can easily prove these premises to be true.

Well, if you can, then you can do something hundreds of other philosophers have tried to do the past 2,500 years. After all, it's said that all philosophy has been done, and everything today is mere footnotes. In other words, I won't hold my breath.

 

[Link]

Philosophers including Plato have proven God. There is a revision of their proofs by conjecture in this century. Who you go to matters.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Atheism is "not believing in gods." No one claims that there are no gods who isn't just expressing a belief. If I say, "There are no gods!" that's a belief, not knowledge. Knowledge applies only were there are things to know.

When you say "there are no gods", then you are making an appeal to knowledge. It's a knowledge claim. You claim to KNOW there are no gods.

Otherwise it is "I believe there are no gods".

Subtle difference, I agree. But certainly different.

IN that sense, knowledge is kind of a subset of belief.
Obviously you will believe that which you claim to know.
But the other way round isn't so. You will not necessarily claim to know that which you merely believe.