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

[PureX]

"Assuming any position whatsoever on anything is making a positive claim, such as that either God exists or does not exist."

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!

Here's an example. You and I enter a room neither of us has ever been in before. In this room is a table and on that table is a large glass jar filled to the brim with marbles. You take one look at the jar and declare: I'm convinced that there are exactly 1,403 marbles in that jar. I look at the same jar and announce: I am NOT convinced that there are 1,403 marbles in that jar.

Now, in MY statement am I making the positive claim that I'm convinced that there are NOT 1,403 marbles in the jar? NO! I'm not saying that I'm convinced there AREN'T 1,403 marbles, ONLY that I'm NOT convinced that there definitely ARE 1,403 marbles. I concede that it's POSSIBLE that the number COULD be 1,403, but without verifiable evidence (that is without actually counting the marbles) it would be ridiculous for me to declare affirmatively that there ARE exactly that number.

The exact same hold true when an atheist responds to a theists claim that god definitely exists. An atheists stating that they have no reason to believe a god does exist, is NOT the same as making the declarative statement NO GODS EXIST. It's POSSIBLE that a god exists,but without verifiable evidence for a god it would be ridiculous to declare affirmatively that a god DOES exist.

You've changed the scenario from a truth statement of what is, to a statement of personal conviction. Having done that, your lack of conviction becomes a logical antithetical position. But regarding the asserted truth that God/gods exist, the logical antithetical position is that God/gods do not exist, not that you are not convinced. As the assertion was never predicated on anyone's conviction.

 

[Revoltingest]

Just an agnostic atheist.

"Just"?
That's like saying.....
"Just" the greatest most wonderfulest thing ever!

 

[QuestioningMind]

You've changed the scenario from a truth statement of what is, to a statement of personal conviction. Having done that, your lack of conviction becomes a logical antithetical position. But regarding the asserted truth that God/gods exist, the logical antithetical position is that God/gods do not exist, not that you are not convinced. As the assertion was never predicated on anyone's conviction.

What an incomprehensible word salad. The assertion that a god exists is NOT predicated on anyone's conviction? Of COURSE it is! It's predicated on the conviction of whomever is making the assertion! If there were no theists asserting their personal conviction that god truly exists, there would be no atheists declaring a lack of belief in such assertions.

 

[Jesster]

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.


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."


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


"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.

I'm going to move on. This isn't worth it to me anymore. Have a good day.

 

[LuisDantas]

@PureX , I take it that you have heard of the need for extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims?

 

[Jesster]

I'll make one short closing statement. If you want to have a conversation about someone's beliefs, don't get too hung up about what labels they use. Ask them what they believe and why they believe it. Attempting to shove your own views onto their label usage is only going to ruin any attempt to get anything out of the conversation. It's going to make them less willing to talk with you.

Labels are quick shortcuts to ideas. They hold a limited range of information to quickly spread ideas across to others. If the labels really aren't working for you, focus on the ideas. That's what the labels were there for in the first place, and that's where the meat of everything was all along.

I will give you the same consideration. If you use labels in a different way than I understand them, that's fine. I'm far more interested in the ideas you're personally holding behind that label. If you say you believe one way, I will take your word for it. What use would I get out of saying you actually believe differently?

 

[blü 2]

I'm pretty sure you believe something about what "God" is and whether or not it exists.

I used to agree with you. Then I realized that all I had in mind were imaginary gods, with imaginary qualities.

I think to be an atheist I should need to know what real thing I don't believe in, and as I said, no one can give me a satisfactory definition of a god with objective existence, such that if we had a real candidate we could tell whether it were a god or not.

In other words, what real quality is 'godness', that which makes divine beings divine? And since it's real, how do we detect it and correctly identify it?

Without this, the notion of a god is incoherent at best, or so it seems to me.

I think you're just not bothering to articulate what you believe, perhaps because you don't want to have to defend it.

If anything I've just said is unclear, just ask.

And I'm completely happy to defend my view. Perhaps you could set the ball rolling with that definition of a real god?

 

[Windwalker]

"Assuming any position whatsoever on anything is making a positive claim, such as that either God exists or does not exist."

WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!

Despite popular misconceptions, pounding on the table while speaking does not in fact increase the substance of the words being spoken. I prefer clarity of thought, over room volume, personally.

Now, in MY statement am I making the positive claim that I'm convinced that there are NOT 1,403 marbles in the jar? NO!

Yes, yes you are. Or if you prefer this style, YES!!!! YES YOU ARE!!!!

You are stating, "I am not convinced". That is a positive statement. That is a positive affirmation of what you believe. You believe I may be wrong. There really isn't any further explanation needed.

 

[wandering peacefully]

Except that what you don't believe is irrelevant, moot, and illogical to assert.
There is no way for you to know this, yet you clearly believe it, and are adamantly asserting it as the truth. So why are you lying and claiming that you have no belief regarding the nature or existence of God when you so obviously do?
And you would be lying then as well. Because you would just as clearly have beliefs about them, and make assertions of truth based on those beliefs, as you have about God.
But no one asked you about any stories, or even about what you believe. The question was not that specific. The question posed to you, by theism, is; "does God exist?" It's about the conceptual existence of a God or gods. And the same with Santa Claus. The question is not about what you don't believe, it's about the conceptual existence of Santa Claus.

"You believe "Santa" is:____, you believe God is ____, you believe this about each, ____, and so on. But you don't "unbelieve" anything. Because a lack does not exist as anything BUT a belief.
That's because you are jumping directly into your bias regarding the stories, and not stopping to clarify the concept that is being posed toy you, and the question that you are being asked to consider.
None of this has anything to do with the proposition that God exists. Stories are stories, they exist as stories. The characters in the stories exist as characters in the stories. The ideals the stories convey to us also exist as ideals in the minds and hearts of human beings. But none of these things ARE GOD. They are all conceptual representations intended to help us gain some concept of what God might be, and how God might interact with us, if God exists. They are only tangential to the proposition that God/gods exist. And to your answer to that question.
I agree, but that would require that we stop jerking our knees every time the term "God" is used, and some in depth consideration be given to clarifying exactly what this god-concept entails, and how it relates to our own experience of existence. Sadly, that isn't the case with most people.

You apparently were unable or unwilling to comprehend what I was attempting to explain to you as well as not answering the one question I posed.

And I do not usually carry on conversations with people who have no knowledge of me yet feel free to call me a liar on several different occasions within one conversation. Thanks for not wasting any more of my time.

And please correct your conversation where you somehow used my name to quote what someone else said. I did not say what you have quoted me as saying. Thank you in advance.

 

[PureX]

What an incomprehensible word salad. The assertion that a god exists is NOT predicated on anyone's conviction? Of COURSE it is! It's predicated on the conviction of whomever is making the assertion!

Your jumping to conclusions that suit your bias and justify your subterfuge.

If there were no theists asserting their personal conviction that god truly exists, there would be no atheists declaring a lack of belief in such assertions.

Anyone can assert the existence of God/gods whether they are theists or not. The assertion does not require belief. And neither does the response.

 

[PureX]

@PureX , I take it that you have heard of the need for extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims?

Sure, but logically, it's just another bias. Because it's no more "extraordinary" to claim God exists then it is to claim that God doesn't exist without producing "extraordinary evidence". And the demand for such evidence is illogical given the subjective nature of the god-concept.

 

[`mud]

Ahhhh...clues...the lack of same !
mon amie

 

[PureX]

I used to agree with you. Then I realized that all I had in mind were imaginary gods, with imaginary qualities.

Then perhaps that was time to reconsider your conception of "God".

I think to be an atheist I should need to know what real thing I don't believe in, and as I said, no one can give me a satisfactory definition of a god with objective existence, such that if we had a real candidate we could tell whether it were a god or not.

No one ELSE can define God for you. That's your responsibility. You can listen to how others define it for themselves, but in the end, you have to take or leave or invent whatever makes sense to you.

Having done that, you still will not likely "know" whether such a God exists or not, beyond the human concept, but you could then see and perhaps appreciate the possibility of choosing to believe it, based on faith and it's results, rather then on the pretense of knowledge.

In other words, what real quality is 'godness', that which makes divine beings divine? And since it's real, how do we detect it and correctly identify it?

Those are very good and useful questions to consider. I personally see existence is being both natural and divine. The divine aspect being the spirit of love, kindness, forgiveness, and generosity I find expressed through my own nature, and through the nature of existence, itself. So I don't conceive of "God" as being something apart from physical existence, meddling in it occasionally, as many theists choose to do.

Without this, the notion of a god is incoherent at best, or so it seems to me.

If anything I've just said is unclear, just ask.

You are quite right, which is why "unbelief" is such a shallow and bogus response to the proposition. Your response is far more reasonable ... curiosity, contemplation, investigation, and so on, until you ultimately do determine what "God" is, to you, and can then respond honestly and coherently to the proposition. If nothing else, you can always ask; "what kind of God are you asserting to exist?" Not that you should be expected to agree to someone else's definition, but that their definition may help you to clarify your own.

And I'm completely happy to defend my view. Perhaps you could set the ball rolling with that definition of a real god?

I think you need to define your view, for yourself, first, before you can defend it. Otherwise, you're not really defending your own view, you're just trying to negate someone else's. Which is an ugly habit that a LOT of atheists seem to have fallen into.

 

[PureX]

You apparently were unable or unwilling to comprehend what I was attempting to explain to you as well as not answering the one question I posed.

And I do not usually carry on conversations with people who have no knowledge of me yet feel free to call me a liar on several different occasions within one conversation. Thanks for not wasting any more of my time.

And please correct your conversation where you somehow used my name to quote what someone else said. I did not say what you have quoted me as saying. Thank you in advance.

I am responding only to what I am reading. I do not presume that your words are "you". So you have no reason to be offended. I'f I'm misunderstanding you, then maybe you should consider the way you are expressing yourself more carefully, and clarify your position.

Hint: "unbelief" is NOT any form of clarification. It's just the opposite, as it says pretty much nothing at all.

Also, as you can see, I am responding to several people at a time, here, and being that I am an old man, I may forget to reset my copy of the poster's quote command each time. Sorry. I think everyone here knows that this sometimes happens, and can see past it, however.

 

[PureX]

I cannot prove there are no gods, so I'm an agnostic atheist / weak atheist.
But the notion of gods is so ridiculous, that I speculate that there are none at all.
Am I a semi-weak atheist?

Actually, you are a gnostic atheist, not an agnostic atheist, as you are assuming that if gods existed, we would know it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually, you are a gnostic atheist, not an agnostic atheist, as you are assuming that if gods existed, we would know it.

Where is his assumption? How do you know that he made an assumption? In fact he specifically said that he speculates "that there are none at all". Why do you have such a problem with people that reason rationally?

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually, you are a gnostic atheist, not an agnostic atheist, as you are assuming that if gods existed, we would know it.

You've no idea what I am or what I assume.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure, but logically, it's just another bias. Because it's no more "extraordinary" to claim God exists then it is to claim that God doesn't exist without producing "extraordinary evidence". And the demand for such evidence is illogical given the subjective nature of the god-concept.

Of course it is extraordinary. The problem may be is that you are using a word that you are familiar with and appears to be reasonable to you merely due to familiarity. Try substituting the phrase "universe farting pixies" for "God" in this post of yours and you will see how ridiculous it is.

In fact let me do so for you:

Sure, but logically, it's just another bias. Because it's no more "extraordinary" to claim universe farting pixies exist then it is to claim that universe farting pixies don't exist without producing "extraordinary evidence". And the demand for such evidence is illogical given the subjective nature of the pixie-concept.

You still are having a hard time grasping the concept that the burden of proof is upon those claiming that something does exist. I hope this helps.

 

[blü 2]

Then perhaps that was time to reconsider your conception of "God".
No one ELSE can define God for you. That's your responsibility. You can listen to how others define it for themselves, but in the end, you have to take or leave or invent whatever makes sense to you.

Having no definition, I'm a nonbeliever. But given I think I'd need to withhold belief from something coherently described and claimed to be real, and not just something as trivial as 'imaginary', I have no so such definition, and I seriously doubt one exists.

I personally see existence is being both natural and divine. The divine aspect being the spirit of love, kindness, forgiveness, and generosity I find expressed through my own nature, and through the nature of existence, itself.

I'm all in favor of love, kindness, forgiveness and generosity. But please explain what you mean by 'divine' here, and why those particular traits seem to you to fit your definition. Or is 'divine' meant to reflect a personal approving attitude in the speaker, rather than any quality of the trait itself?

"unbelief" is such a shallow and bogus response to the proposition. Your response is far more reasonable ... curiosity, contemplation, investigation, and so on, until you ultimately do determine what "God" is, to you

The best answer I can give you, after thinking hard and debating my ideas on the net over quite a few years, is that 'a god' or 'God' is first and foremost an imaginary being. In the Abrahamic West he's often conceived of as being able to do everything, and as loving but with a stern side, so perhaps he's like a huge version of the way our fathers seem to us when we're four.

 

[PureX]

Where is his assumption? How do you know that he made an assumption?

He assumed that if God/gods exist, he, or someone, would be able to prove it. And he states that because he/they cannot, God/gods probably don't exist. This is atheism based on the presumption that theism is provable. Which directly contradicts the position of agnosticism.