Trying To Understand Atheism

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No matter how many times you repeat it. I reject the whole idea that there is such a thing as an absence of belief. I'm not budging on this. Atheism is a position, not a lack of one.

Hopefully this will help you understand the idea better:

"Theism" refers to the range of positions that include belief in a god or gods.

"Atheism" refers to the range of positions made up of every position other than ones that fall within theism.

Every atheist who has a functioning mind holds all sorts of positions. Take me: I hold that, for instance, that the Earth orbits the sun and that golf is boring.

Nobody's saying that atheists hold no positions, or even that they don't hold any positions about gods. What we're saying is that any person who isn't a theist is an atheist, and there are countless belief systems that qualify as "not theism."

It's also worth remembering that there's a difference between rejecting an argument for a god and rejecting the god itself. Take this statement:

"Steve's arguments and justifications for God are irrational nonsense. He's a fool and an idiot for believing in it."

This statement doesn't speak at all to the question of whether Steve's God actually exists.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe I do.

Then you should have no problem answering the first part of my post.

I'll repeat it here for your convenience:

So what's a god, then?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

No matter how many times you repeat it. I reject the whole idea that there is such a thing as an absence of belief. I'm not budging on this. Atheism is a position, not a lack of one.


Two and three are atheists, but neither positions are a mere "lack" of a belief. In either case you are making a real claim about what you think about the existence of God. The only difference between two and three is the degree of certainty.

Your bias toward your particular god myth is glaringly obvious, and impeding your ability to see this objectively.

To me, "god" is just a straw in a haystack of potential and actual superstititious beliefs. One need not address them all or even be aware of them all to not believe them.

You are ascribing importance to yours that only exists in your own mind.

 

[Augustus]

Then you should have no problem answering the first part of my post.

I'll repeat it here for your convenience:

So what's a god, then?

Whatever I want to believe it is of course. That's the beauty of my beliefs; they are whatever I want them to be. Like pornography, I might not be able to define it precisely, but I'll know it when I see it.

Even though it isn't really relevant, off the top of my head probably these:

1. Omnimax super monotheist God
2. Formless sub omimax god with limitations (big range from dualistic gods, demiurge, deist god, etc.)
3. Man/animal with superpowers type gods.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Whatever I want to believe it is of course. That's the beauty of my beliefs; they are whatever I want them to be. Like pornography, I might not be able to define it precisely, but I'll know it when I see it.

But if gods, like pornography, need to be seen to be identified for what they are, how does someone go about rejecting the gods they haven't "seen" (or heard described)?

Even though it isn't really relevant, off the top of my head probably these:

1. Omnimax super monotheist God
2. Formless sub omimax god with limitations (big range from dualistic gods, demiurge, deist god, etc.)
3. Man/animal with superpowers type gods.

What tests would there be to demonstrate that a "formless sub omnimax god with limitations" doesn't exist? What predictions does such a god imply that could be tested?

IOW, for such a god, what fills in the blank? If this god existed, I would expect to see ________, so if I look, but find that there is no ________ to be observed, I can conclude that the god does not exist.

The only common characteristic I've found for all gods is one that you didn't mention: a god is an object of human worship. Would you agree that this is a characteristic common to all gods?

This has implications for whether it's even possible to reject all gods: we can't reject the existence of vague, unfalsifiable entities floating out in space far beyond our ken, but if we can limit ourselves to only the gods that humanity has ever believed in, then at least the number of potential gods is finite (ridiculously large, but finite).

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

No matter how many times you repeat it. I reject the whole idea that there is such a thing as an absence of belief. I'm not budging on this. Atheism is a position, not a lack of one.


Two and three are atheists, but neither positions are a mere "lack" of a belief. In either case you are making a real claim about what you think about the existence of God. The only difference between two and three is the degree of certainty.

As an addendum to my last reply, a thought experiment. Say I, as men tend to do, invented myself a god, and as per 9/10ths stipulation, began to worship it. I go further, also as per common practice, and ascribe my god with a specific set of attributes.

I tell nobody about my own personal deity.

Since you have not been made aware of my deity, nor his attributes, it is impossible that you believe in him too.

By your logic, you have already formed a belief about my god, (that he doesnt exist) despite never even considering the question. You've basically become a religious version of Schrödinger's cat.

 

[Augustus]

But if gods, like pornography, need to be seen to be identified for what they are, how does someone go about rejecting the gods they haven't "seen" (or heard described)?

They don't form part of my beliefs so don't really concern me.

What tests would there be to demonstrate that a "formless sub omnimax god with limitations" doesn't exist? What predictions does such a god imply that could be tested?

Beliefs don't have to conform to a scientific method. They're just beliefs, stuff you think. Might be wrong, might not be.

The only common characteristic I've found for all gods is one that you didn't mention: a god is an object of human worship. Would you agree that this is a characteristic common to all gods?

Not really the deist god. He chillin'. Folk know that.

This has implications for whether it's even possible to reject all gods: we can't reject the existence of vague, unfalsifiable entities floating out in space far beyond our ken

Yes we can. 'Tis easy

You have proposed that there are gods I don't know about that might exist. I reject that.

As do most theists btw.

 

[1137]

They aren't the same:

- "I see no reason to believe gods exist": I don't have any positive evidence for gods (but don't necessarily have any evidence against the existence of gods).

- "I find the existence of gods unlikely": I have some amount of evidence against the existence of gods.

Lol, so you see no reason for gods but don't find then unlikely. This is just sad.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

They don't form part of my beliefs so don't really concern me.

Whether they concern you or not, you haven't rejected them... or even have any opinion about them. If we insist that atheism is a general rejection of gods, then this is a problem.

Beliefs don't have to conform to a scientific method. They're just beliefs, stuff you think. Might be wrong, might not be.

People can certainly hold irrational beliefs, but I'm looking to make sure that we aren't using a definition of "atheist" that implies that an atheist is necessarily irrational, and that anyone who has come to their beliefs in a reasonable way can't possibly be an atheist.

If you're setting up a situation where your definition of "atheism" is so skewed that atheism can't possibly be arrived at reasonably, then I'd say you're poisoning the well.

Not really the deist god. He chillin'. Folk know that.

Many people worship the deist god.

Yes we can. 'Tis easy

You have proposed that there are gods I don't know about that might exist. I reject that.

On what grounds?

... And I thought you said you don't concern yourself with gods you've never heard of. Now you say you reject them. Which is it?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Lol, so you see no reason for gods but don't find then unlikely. This is just sad.

Don't put words in my mouth, thanks. Edit: I never said that I personally hold either of those positions. Read more carefully next time.

My position on gods varies depending on the god we're talking about.

 

[1137]

Don't put words in my mouth, thanks. Edit: I never said that I personally hold either of those positions. Read more carefully next time.

My position on gods varies depending on the god we're talking about.

I didn't mean you specifically, I mean anyone asinine enough to see no reason or evidence for god, but not to think they're therefore unlikely.

 

[Augustus]

People can certainly hold irrational beliefs, but I'm looking to make sure that we aren't using a definition of "atheist" that implies that an atheist is necessarily irrational, and that anyone who has come to their beliefs in a reasonable way can't possibly be an atheist.

If you're setting up a situation where your definition of "atheism" is so skewed that atheism can't possibly be arrived at reasonably, then I'd say you're poisoning the well.

There's nothing necessarily irrational about rejecting the existence of things you don't believe exist.

You can sleep easy.

And I thought you said you don't concern yourself with gods you've never heard of. Now you say you reject them. Which is it?

They didn't concern me until you made me think of them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I didn't mean you specifically, I mean anyone asinine enough to see no reason or evidence for god, but not to think they're therefore unlikely.

Ah. Thanks for clarifying.

Whether it's "asinine" depends on the god. If a god-concept implies that certain signs of the god should be apparent but they aren't there, then yes: the person should take the absence of evidence that the god in question probably doesn't exist.

OTOH, if the god is one of the many gods that has been crafted so that its existence doesn't imply any observable conditions, then the absence of evidence doesn't say anything about whether the god exists. In that case, the god is irrelevant: the existence or non-existence of the god doesn't impact the person in any measurable way. At that point, asking whether the god is "likely" is like asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

In these cases, Laplace's response (on God: "I had no need for that hypothesis") works just fine.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There's nothing necessarily irrational about rejecting the existence of things you don't believe exist.

Unjustified conclusions are necessarily irrational.

They didn't concern me until you made me think of them.

So you weren't thinking of them the first time you talked about them in your post?

 

[Augustus]

Unjustified conclusions are necessarily irrational.

Probabilistic ones aren't necessarily unjustified.

So you weren't thinking of them the first time you talked about them in your post?

That is correct.

Was thinking how many times I've answered the same question with the same answer

I actually thought about how to answer the 2nd one.

 

[MonkeyFire]

For the weak atheist, there is no burden of proof at all, ie,
my disbelief is founded upon no proof for or against gods.

Blind skepticism.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Again, that is only true to some (IMO lesser) undertandings of what "faith" means.

Faith in life, and a skeptical life define one another.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Actually, skepticism can be applied to not only faith, but also to belief and also to knowledge. One can also have faith in the process of skepticism. This demonstrates that faith and skepticism are not polar opposites.

Love Hate, I guess.

 

[Revoltingest]

Blind skepticism.

Not blind at all.
Seeing things.....just no evidence for gods.
And no believer has ever been able to point anything cromulent which I'm missing.

 

[LuisDantas]

Faith in life, and a skeptical life define one another.

Do they? How so?