Isn’t Atheism a world view without reasons and arguments?

[Willamena]

Atheists are people. Without those people, there would be no atheism. What's wrong with talking personally when I am an atheist? You seem to have no issue accepting that I am an atheist, but at the same time you are talking about the idea of atheism as if it doesn't fit me. Where is the disconnect?

Personalizing a topic makes it hard to discuss objectively. And conflating 'the atheist' of atheism with individuals makes it even harder. The idea of atheism doesn't fit any of us: it's an ideal.

I understood you, but okay. Did you at least understand me?

I spoke about the worldview of atheists, not about atheism as a worldview.

The worldview of atheists is a world without God/gods.

Let's keep it separate for a moment then. We've already established that atheism means not believing in a god or gods. Where does that definition say that an atheist must believe there are no gods? There are atheists that do not take that additional position. That position is extra.

It's not the definition of atheist that says that the atheist believes that there are no gods, but the definition of belief. Belief is an investment in what appears to be true. To claim that one doesn't believe is to say that one thinks an alleged truth is false. That position is not extra, it's very much the world lacking God/gods. That's the atheist, as opposed to the agnostic.

No, that's not how it works. You're creating a false dichotomy. Let me split this into two questions for you to display why.

Question 1: Do you believe there is an even number of gumballs in the jar?
Answer 1: No, I do not believe there is an even number of gumballs in the jar.

Question 2: Do you believe there is an odd number of gumballs in the jar?
Answer 2: No, I do not believe there is an odd number of gumballs in the jar.

I would answer both of those questions exactly like that. I do not believe either is true before the jar can be properly counted.

Stating that one doesn't believe even or odd because one doesn't know even or odd reverses the order of conventional classical logic. Ordinary, knowledge is a justified true belief.

Q1: I don't know.
Q2: I don't know.​

...It's really about agnosticism.

Now, if you ask me if I believe in God, I'd say no. With reason.

Atheism isn't about knowledge. It's about belief.

Just so.

I don't have to take up a belief either way. I'm not saying it's "not even". I'm saying I don't hold the belief that it's even. Can you spot the difference?

Can you spot the difference between, "I don't believe it's even," and, "It's not even."

I hope not, because there is none. Both are statements of belief.

The analogy doesn't fail. You're just misunderstanding it. I stated why above with the two questions of odd and even separated.

And I don't buy it.

 

[Willamena]

It is a bit funny. I didn't think this was so difficult.

It wouldn't be, except that decades of arguing for atheism at this forum have conditioned me.

 

[Valjean]

I believe that most atheists take the position that there is no god or gods based on insufficient evidence.

Many do, but most self avowed atheists define atheism, essentially, simply as a lack of belief, not as a positive assertion of non-existence.

Not at all. Consider the gumball example.

There is a large jar filled with gumballs. The total number of gumballs is either odd or even. Before counting them, do you believe that the total number is even? If you don't hold that belief, does it automatically mean you believe the total number is odd? Isn't it possible to believe neither before you're able to investigate further?

This is a false dilemma.

No. Atheism is a statement of belief. "There is no god," is a statement of belief.

American atheists:

Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods.

Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

Atheist Alliance International:

Atheism is very simple, yet widely misunderstood. The word atheism comprises the word theism with the prefix ‘a’. So let’s break it down. Theism is the belief in a god or gods. The prefix ‘a’ means; ‘without’ or ‘lack of’. Therefore, atheism means ‘without a belief in a god or gods’ or the ‘lack of a belief in a god or gods’.

We often hear theists say, “If you don’t believe in God, you must believe God does not exist!” but this is simply wrong. Lacking a belief in a god does not entail believing that no gods exist. A person could reasonably say she doesn’t know if any gods exist, and there are none that she currently believes in.

The essential definition of "atheism" is lack of belief in God. As the single feature shared by all varieties of atheism it is definitive. When you say "atheism," this is what most atheists take you to mean.
If you mean one of the subdivisions or modifications of atheism, like "God does not exist," Then please use a modifier like Strong atheism or anti-theism.

 

[Jesster]

Stating that one doesn't believe even or odd because one doesn't know even or odd reverses the order of conventional classical logic.

I never stated any such cause and effect.

Ordinary, knowledge is a justified true belief.

I will agree with your definition of knowledge. It's the same one I use. Now let me twist this on you.

If knowledge is a subset of belief (a justified true one), saying "I don't know" if the gumballs are even means you know that the gumballs are odd according to the way you've been arguing for belief. Knowledge is a specific kind of belief, remember? In your eyes, not believing something means believing the opposite, so the same would follow for knowledge.

This is what I'm trying to avoid because that's ridiculous.

Q1: I don't know.
Q2: I don't know.
...It's really about agnosticism.

The question of the number of gumballs was not asking about what you know or don't know. It was asking about what you believe. You can saw "I don't know" and still remain honest, but you aren't answering the question. I also say "I don't know", but to answer the question, no I do not believe.

Now, if you ask me if I believe in God, I'd say no. With reason.

So you can do this without believing there are no gods, but atheists can't?

Can you spot the difference between, "I don't believe it's even," and, "It's not even."

I hope not, because there is none. Both are statements of belief.

Let's continue the twist above since you seem to at least understand knowledge.

"I don't believe it's even" does not imply that "I believe it's not even."

"I don't know it's even" does not imply that "I know it's not even."

You can both not believe something and not know something while allowing room for it to be presented as true later on. At such a point, I would start believing.

 

[Jesster]

This is a false dilemma.

A false dilemma is setting something up as an "either/or" situation when there could be additional options. That's not what the gumball analogy is doing since I will gladly allow for additional options to play out in the scenario. There could be any number of things going on there. I'm stating that an atheist's position there would be to not believe that the number is even.

It could also be odd. There also could be partial gumballs. What if they aren't even gumballs? Who knows? The point is that I'm not jumping to belief until a count is made.

 

[PureX]

And yes, it's POSSIBLE to define a person's worldview by declaring what they do NOT believe in, ...

Please reread this, and actually take a moment to consider just how absurd it is.

 

[Windwalker]

You have that backwards. You're acting as if the default position is to believe in every single fantastical claim, until you can find justification to not believe it.

Absolutely not. I am arguing there is no default position at all. Assuming any position whatsoever on anything is making a positive claim, such as that either God exists or does not exist. Both are positions on a question, and therefore a positive claim.

Saying that the "default" is no position whatsoever, is neither affirming or denying anything at all. The default is just being in the world, and questions of this or that, true or false, are later positions that are part of the world of mental questions about reality. I'll add one other variable here. It is also the default state when one has set aside questions of God or No-God and just simply lives in the moment. In that state, one neither affirms nor denies anything. The default is quite literally "beyond belief." It is outside the realm of beliefs of any kind.

That's not how it works. The default position is to not accept a claim as truth unless there is justification to believe that it is.

That is taking a position of "no" until proved otherwise. That is still a position. It is still engaged in the world of questions of "this or not this". That is what atheism is, taking a positive position on a question, "no, until proven otherwise", is an affirmative position. By contrast, if you ask a child prior to encountering such questions if God exists or does not exist, you might get the answer, "What's that?" That's a non-position. That is not a statement of denial, just merely puzzlement what the question is for. To them, all they know is the world as they experience it, not the world as they think it in terms of dualistic separations.

 

[`mud]

About those gumballs, a true atheist wouldn't give a crap,
an agnostic would want to count,
an agnostic atheist would want to find out if they were real gumballs.
Odd or even ?? Eat one and find out, is the count odd or even,
atheists don't give a crap !
And...atheists aren't organized because they don't give a crap,
but....they like to argue a lot !

 

[PureX]

No. Atheism is a statement of belief. "There is no god," is a statement of belief.

What one believes at any given moment is irrelevant to the statement. The statement is a proposal of 'truth'. Whether the person making the statement believes it, or to what degree, is not knowable, nor relevant. "There is no God" is a proposed truth. Belief isn't an intrinsic requirement for a proposed truth.

 

[Windwalker]

Gnosticism means taking a position of certain knowledge. The prefix A- means "not" or "without", so agnosticism means not taking a position of certain knowledge.

That's an interesting use of the word gnosticism. Not how I would use it. As much as I hate dictionary quoting, it will suffice here. The root word Gnostic means this:

1. relating to knowledge, especially esoteric mystical knowledge.
   • noun

1. 1.
   an adherent of Gnosticism.

Gnosticism specifically refers to a form of knowledge that is attained through direct mystical experience. So I think you may choose to refine how you are using that term as to avoid confusion with others.

But to the point of taking a position, which I moments ago in my previous post to another poster went into some detail on, one could argue that agnosticism is "neutral" on questions, "not-knowing" (which I might choose at another point to take to task somewhat), but we aren't talking about agnosticism, but atheism which is an affirmative, or positive statement that "no-God" exists.

Theism means belief in a god or gods. If we apply that A- prefix again you can get atheism, which means without a belief in a god or gods.

No it doesn't. It means a "no" to the question of the belief. It's not just the absence of a belief. If it was "blank", theism would not be part of the word. It would be this word here: "___________". That's the correct word for the default. No word at all. There is no question. There is no this or that. There is no theism, nor its opposite a-theism, (nor is there even "agnosticism" as no question exists in the default state). There is no position to take as there is no question asked.

I honestly feel puzzled why it's so bad for someone claiming atheism to simply be brave and say they believe something is not true, and just be done with it. There's nothing wrong with that as a belief. It's certainly is a valid position to take. But at least don't then deny it's a position on a question of belief, for some mysterious reason. Just simply own it and affirm it was a positive statement. I can respect that.

Since one of these deals with your position of certainty of knowledge and the other deals with belief, the labels are not mutually exclusive.

I don't take any position about anything with a certainty of knowledge. Where have you seen me claiming this? Honestly, I think anything we think and believe is a relative truth. The only thing to me that is certain in questions of the mind, is uncertainty.

For example, I am an agnostic atheist. This means I do not hold a belief in a god or gods and I am not making any claims of certainty about them. This position is not a position of positive assertions at all. "Agnosticism" isn't an alternative to my position. It is a part of it.

If you are agnostic, then say you are agnostic. Tacking atheism on to that is making a conflicting statement. Atheism does not have to be a statement of "certainty" in order for it to still be a positive affirmation. I believe many things, yet I hold none of them in how I hold those in my mind with absolute certitude. That doesn't mean I should preface all of these affirmative statements about my beliefs with "agnostic" to soften them.

I think the simpler path is to simply not speak in dogmatic terms. That would be a matter of degrees of positive, or affirmative beliefs, from "soft to hard" as it were. You're not a militant atheist. Great! You're a soft or more 'open' atheist. But you do say, "I don't believe God exists.". If I'm wrong, and you really are 50/50 on the question, non-committed either way, then just call yourself an agnostic.

 

[PureX]

I think the simpler path is to simply not speak in dogmatic terms. That would be a matter of degrees of positive, or affirmative beliefs, from "soft to hard" as it were. You're not a militant atheist. Great! You're a soft or more 'open' atheist. But you do say, "I don't believe God exists.". If I'm wrong, and you really are 50/50 on the question, non-committed either way, then just call yourself an agnostic.

I believe that the agnostics are correct in that the nature and existence of God/gods cannot be determined through human knowledge. Leaving it to the realm of either faith, or pretense. And it's in that realm that both the theist and the atheist reside. It's also in that realm that both theists and atheists have a strong tendency to become dishonest, if they have chosen pretense, rather than faith, to define and motivate their chosen beliefs.

 

[Willamena]

I never stated any such cause and effect.


I will agree with your definition of knowledge. It's the same one I use. Now let me twist this on you.

If knowledge is a subset of belief (a justified true one), saying "I don't know" if the gumballs are even means you know that the gumballs are odd according to the way you've been arguing for belief. Knowledge is a specific kind of belief, remember? In your eyes, not believing something means believing the opposite, so the same would follow for knowledge.

This is what I'm trying to avoid because that's ridiculous.

It is ridiculous. I am not stating that "not believing something means believing the opposite" as some sort of rule. If someone says that they don't believe that the number of gumballs is odd, there is only one alternative: that they believe it's even. The genuine statement of belief is a statement of a way that one thinks that the world actually is. If one thinks the number of gumballs is not even, well... it's not like there is a middle ground between odd and even.

The question of the number of gumballs was not asking about what you know or don't know. It was asking about what you believe. You can saw "I don't know" and still remain honest, but you aren't answering the question. I also say "I don't know", but to answer the question, no I do not believe.

But there is no "belief" answer to the even/odd question of gumballs that can genuinely be given when the case can't be assumed. The statement of belief is a statement of a way that one thinks that the world actually is. The correct response should be, "I don't know," else one is posing a guess.

Now, if the gumballs were counted and the number came up even, the person would be justified in stating, "I don't believe that the number of gumballs is odd."

So you can do this without believing there are no gods, but atheists can't?

Everyone can state their beliefs, nothing I've said prevents it.

Let's continue the twist above since you seem to at least understand knowledge.

"I don't believe it's even" does not imply that "I believe it's not even."

"I don't know it's even" does not imply that "I know it's not even."

You can both not believe something and not know something while allowing room for it to be presented as true later on. At such a point, I would start believing.

"I don't believe it's even," does imply that you believe it's odd. You are making a statement about a way you think the world is. "Not even" is odd: it's a rather binary opposition.

You can withhold belief while allowing room for belief to be presented as true later on. That's not the position of the atheist, though. The atheist hasn't withheld belief, she has stated a way that she thinks the world actually is.

 

[Willamena]

What one believes at any given moment is irrelevant to the statement. The statement is a proposal of 'truth'. Whether the person making the statement believes it, or to what degree, is not knowable, nor relevant. "There is no God" is a proposed truth. Belief isn't an intrinsic requirement for a proposed truth.

If the proposed truth reflects the way one thinks the world actually is at any given moment, then it is nothing more than a belief.

 

[PureX]

If the proposed truth reflects the way one thinks the world actually is at any given moment, then it is nothing more than a belief.

And if it doesn't, then it doesn't. And if it reflects how one feels about the world instead of what one thinks about it? How about if it reflects what one thinks or feels about the world today, but not yesterday or tomorrow? How about when one thinks or feels only slightly more certain that the world is this way, rather then that? Is being 51% certain considered a "belief"?

These questions, and many others like them, are why "belief" is not the relevant criteria for positing a statement of truth.

 

[Windwalker]

I believe that the agnostics are correct in that the nature and existence of God/gods cannot be determined through human knowledge. Leaving it to the realm of either faith, or pretense. And it's in that realm that both the theist and the atheist reside.

I get what you're saying, and it does appear that way, if we have to use a term for it. But the finer point that I didn't try to argue too much as it could be a distraction, is that even agnosticism as thing, still has a dog in the fight, so to speak. It is still a "position" in the arena of the world of questions of "this or that". It is still a mental position in a dualistic fight ring. Maybe it's more like the referee, who is still part of the game with its rules of winning and losing. It's still thinking in these terms in other words. It's not a true "default".

The default is there is no question. Undecided, is still in the question game. The default condition, is that theism, agnosticism, atheism, etc, are non-things. I don't think agnosticism can truly be said to actually realize that Truth is not a logical proposition to be had by the mind either way. That is a realization that comes once you don't play the question games anymore, when you are simply a Witness to the whole affair and realize it at best offers simply a relative position assumed by the human mind, and does not reflect Reality as it Is. That is not what agnosticism truly denotes.

It's also in that realm that both theists and atheists have a strong tendency to become dishonest, if they have chosen pretense, rather than faith, to define and motivate their chosen beliefs.

Well, I'd agree with this in that one invests their self-worth and self-identities into the things they affirm as true. The ego needs to defend itself, and the illusion of certainty is sought as a sense of security.

One could argue that agnosticism is a better position to take, and it is still an answer or position of neutrality on a question before it, because it finds itself less invested in an answer it then has to defend. Being more "open handed" can be advantageous, especially when we can translate that over to everything we hold to be true, avoiding the perceived need to defend our beliefs from being unseated. There's a whole line of thought I could probably pursue regarding this if I spent some more time on it. But I think you may see the point I'm trying to get at?

 

[ChristineM]

And if it doesn't, then it doesn't. And if it reflects how one feels about the world instead of what one thinks about it? How about if it reflects what one thinks or feels about the world today, but not yesterday or tomorrow? How about when one thinks or feels only slightly more certain that the world is this way, rather then that? Is being 51% certain considered a "belief"?

These questions, and many others like them, are why "belief" is not the relevant criteria for positing a statement of truth.

There are several definitions of truth

Many would use : a fact or belief that is accepted as true.

In which case i believe )) the word truth should be identified with quotes

I prefer the one : that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.

 

[PureX]

I get what you're saying, and it does appear that way, if we have to use a term for it. But the finer point that I didn't try to argue too much as it could be a distraction, is that even agnosticism as thing, still has a dog in the fight, so to speak. It is still a "position" in the arena of the world of questions of "this or that". It is still a mental position in a dualistic fight ring. Maybe it's more like the referee, who is still part of the game with its rules of winning and losing. It's still thinking in these terms in other words. It's not a true "default".

I agree that these terms ultimately refer to a "position" related to the question of the existence of God/gods. Theism an atheism are the yes/no position, while agnosticism is the "undetermined/undeterminable" position. There is no non-positioned "default" once the question has been conceived and asked.

The default is there is no question.

But human nature asks the question of us all. And has asked it since the dawn of time. So there is no human that can claim that default.

Undecided, is still in the question game. The default condition, is that theism, agnosticism, atheism, etc, are non-things. I don't think agnosticism can truly be said to actually realize that Truth is not a logical proposition to be had by the mind either way. That is a realization that comes once you don't play the question games anymore, when you are simply a Witness to the whole affair and realize it at best offers simply a relative position assumed by the human mind, and does not reflect Reality as it Is. That is not what agnosticism truly denotes.

What I think you are describing is faith. Faith takes up where knowledge leaves off. We can choose to believe something based on our desire for it to be true BECAUSE we desire it to be true and because we don't know that it's not. And then see how that works our for us when we act on it as being true. If it produces positive results, we have no knowable reason not to continue believing it. In this, the theist and the atheist leave the agnostic behind. I think we all begin as "agnostics", and then either stay there, or choose, through either faith, or blind pretense, to move past it into theism or theism. This is the step that the atheists want desperately not to acknowledge. Because they do not want to see themselves as acting on faith, or blind pretense. Yet these are the only way to get to their position.

One could argue that agnosticism is a better position to take, and it is still an answer or position of neutrality on a question before it, because it finds itself less invested in an answer it then has to defend.

Yes, but the counter-argument is that it's impotent for exactly that reason. And because of that impotence, it remains forever undetermined. Whereas to choose theism or atheism, based on faith or pretense, will at least render it active, and thereby produce some sort of result. Results that can be used to determine it's value, at least, even if not it's truthfulness.

Being more "open handed" can be advantageous, especially when we can translate that over to everything we hold to be true, avoiding the perceived need to defend our beliefs from being unseated. There's a whole line of thought I could probably pursue regarding this if I spent some more time on it. But I think you may see the point I'm trying to get at?

Yes, fortunately for we humans, we are capable of holding to more then one idea at a time, and doing so even when they significantly contradict each other. So I agree that the optimum methodology for we humans would be to remain honestly agnostic, while daring to choose to believe in the truth that we WANT to be true, regarding the nature and existence of God/gods. And then to act on that belief. Then review the results as we continue to adapt our beliefs to make them more positively effecting in our lives, until and if actual knowledge that can determine the truth becomes available.

 

[PureX]

There are several definitions of truth

Many would use : a fact or belief that is accepted as true.

In which case i believe )) the word truth should be identified with quotes

I prefer the one : that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.

You are quite right in this observation, and I will stand corrected. Some of these ideas are difficult to clearly articulate because so many of the words we use depend on context for their clarity. And when the subject becomes that context ... well, it can get confusing.

 

[`mud]

And I have a great advantage,
I'm already confused all the time !

 

[wandering peacefully]

I see so much debate about what atheism is and is not. I just don't understand the difficulty. Maybe someone could explain the difference between; I lack belief in Santa Clause as a man that flies about in a sled as told by my parents and I lack belief in a god that flies about the universe overseeing humanity as told by people who think that is true?

Some people become confused I think, because they are unable to imagine the god stories as being made up like the Santa stories. It is not the exact same thing?

If not, then what is the difference?

I lack belief in both stories. I am an a-santaclause and an a-theist. It can go on from there as I could be an a-santaclause/a-theist who states for a fact that neither exists or I can go on and state I don't know either because there is no way we can possibly know the answer yet from knowledge we have obtained. Either way, I still lack belief that Santa or God gods exist. It just doesn't seem posible knowing what we have learned about the universe and physics in the past 3,000 years. But if gods or santas appear and start breaking laws of physcs In front of me and everyone else, I might change my mind. In fact probably would. But no such evidence has come forth yet. So in the meantime, I lack belief. End of story.