Lack of belief (yet again)

[Jesster]

I presume you mean they threaten you with eternal damnation.

I am very sorry for you in this situation. We don't get to choose our families, and until we are adults, we don't get to control their input into our lives. But to be honest, there are kids who have it WAY worse. Because there are people who are "parents" in this world that should never have been allowed that responsibility.

I feel like a dweeb saying this, by maybe try to take the situation as a lesson in patience, and in tolerance, and the understanding of those who live their lives buried in such irrational fears (like we don't have enough in the real world to worry about). And the mystery of why they have allowed this to befall them. And be proud of yourself for having the wisdom and the courage not to fall for it, yourself.

The advice here is a little vague, to be honest, but I have extended my patience with them already. These threats were there as I grew up with them and as I continued to keep in contact with them for many years after I moved away. It only got worse as I told them I was an atheist and yet again when with my LGBT admissions. That's when the threats turned into absolute harassment. I put up with that for several more years, but I've mostly had to cut ties with them now. I only hear about them now while talking with my brother, and it doesn't sound like time and distance is improving things either. I'm growing more comfortable without that in my life.

 

[Augustus]

This is different from those who simply lack a belief in god.
I lack a belief in god because I have not seen anything that convinces me god exists.
I do not make the claim "God does not exist".
Thus I do not have burden of proof.

No belief has a burden of proof, you only have a burden of proof if you care about convincing others to your way of thinking.

There's no difference between saying "I believe god doesn't exist as I've not seen anything that convinces me god exists", and "I lack a belief in [the existence of] god as I've not seen anything that convinces me god exists" (other than the grammatical awkwardness of the latter).

 

[Ponder This]

they can not say they believe in niether without claiming that they believe both to be equally likely as true or false

Doesn't "equally likely" imply a certain degree of consideration of the probability?
For example, If I flip a coin that can come up heads or tails and I ask if believe the outcomes is heads and you say, "No" because you have no reason to believe the outcome is heads. And then I ask you if believe the outcome is tails and you say, "No" because you have no reason to believe the outcome is tails. Can I infer that you believe the outcomes to be equally likely? (The answer is no, I can't, there is no way for you to know if the coin is fair or reason for me to think that you've considered the chances carefully to arrive at a conclusion)
A better example: What if I roll a six-sided die and ask you if the outcome was a "one" or "not a one"? You would still lack evidence to say one way or the other, but you couldn't say you believed the outcome to be "one" or "not a one" without some degree of investigation. For example, if you assumed the die was fairly weighted and also assumed that only one of the six sides had a "one" , then you could make a calculation that the chances of a "one" is 1 in 6. In this case, he would expect the outcome to be "not a one", but he wouldn't necessarily believe it wasn't "one". He wouldn't be manifesting a belief until he actually acted upon an expectation.
So when a person says he doesn't believe in either the proposition that "God does exist" or that "God does not exist", he is not necessarily committing to an investigation of the odds.

That's not grammatically logical.
If the statement is that "god exists" (i.e. "p") is true, then its negation is that the statement is not true, rather than that god does not exist.
As an aside, you shouldn't mistake a statement (i.e. "p") for reality.
Let p be statement, "This statement is false."

In this case, the negation of the statement "god exists" is the negation of the statement "god does exist". To say that "god does exist" is false is to say "god does not exist". I was very careful to include those statements in my example, so that it would be clear.

In the case of the statement, "This statement is false." The same logic applies.
Let q be the statement "This statement is false."
q is false implies ¬q is true.
¬q is false implies q is true.
¬q means "not (this statement is false)" which means "this statement is not false"
I could say that I don't believe q is true and that I don't believe ¬q is true.

The problem is "This statement is false" is nonsensical.
"This statement" is not a statement to which a truth value may be ascribed. It's similar to saying something like "The number three is continuous." "continuous" is a property associated with functions and "The number three" is not a function. Therefore, the statement "The number three is continuous" is nonsensical.

If you claim that "This statement" simply refers to the statement in which the phrase "This statement" is embedded, then you are self-defining. For example, if I were to say Let t be equal to t+1, when I solve for t, I get that 0=1. The problem is defining t in terms of itself.

In the case of "god does exist", god is something to which the property of existence can be ascribed.

 

[PureX]

How do you know an atheist can choose not to be one?

That is not true for many of us, perhaps even most.

It's true for all of you. You've just blinded yourselves with your "matter = truth" bias.

 

[PureX]

I don't know if it is a result of people making way, way more out of religious intolerance than it is, or people responding to your insistance that x doesn't happen.

Perhaps I'm responding to wild exaggerations with a bit of exaggeration of my own. Sure, these things happens. But not very often. And most of the time it's not because of religion, it's because of innate anger, willful ignorance, egotism, fear masquerading as bravado, and who knows what else. But you atheists attribute every human failing to religion, if the human that's doing the failing dares speak a peep about God.

I am not religious, so I feel no particular need to defend it. But I am a fan of honesty, and all this hyperbolic religion-bashing by a lot of atheists on here and elsewhere is wildly dishonest, and slanderous of a lot of good religious people in the world.

 

[PureX]

atheism is a cause brought on by the oppression of inferior religion. I would say not all religion is oppressive, and unjust. but Christianity and Islam demand conformity.
scientific materialism is oppressing people as well to conform to their beliefs.

seeing that people are individuals, we should all respect people's rights to be convicted of whatever faith they choose so long as they don't oppress people with the conviction.
people should be free to express their convictions so long as they aren't delusional judgments on people's souls.

there is a need to contest religion, because it is an enemy to freedom of rights. religion should be subject to lawful interrogation, and prohibitive restrictions. or perhaps we should all fight it out under the protection of free speech. it's just that religion is accusatory of those who don't comply.

religion should be better than what we currently have, and it isn't.

I subscribe to free will and the right to choose one's own self so long as it is harmless to the general welfare.

unfortunately many, many millions of people are religious in the accusatory way.

Excellent post, osgart! Thank you.

 

[PureX]

The advice here is a little vague, to be honest, but I have extended my patience with them already. These threats were there as I grew up with them and as I continued to keep in contact with them for many years after I moved away. It only got worse as I told them I was an atheist and yet again when with my LGBT admissions. That's when the threats turned into absolute harassment. I put up with that for several more years, but I've mostly had to cut ties with them now. I only hear about them now while talking with my brother, and it doesn't sound like time and distance is improving things either. I'm growing more comfortable without that in my life.

Bless you. You have certainly given them as much 'grace' as one could, and then some.

I think of these things like addictions. I am a recovered alcoholic of many years (drank for 25, sober for 24), so when I think of it this way I can more easily understand it, and forgive it in others, as I've been there, myself. Recovered addicts and alcoholics like to say that they needed to go through the insanity of addiction to get where they are, now, and to be who they have become as wiser and sober people. Perhaps that's also true for you. You are a wiser, kinder, and more forgiving person for having had to deal with that kind of spiritual, emotional, and intellectual abuse growing up, and as an adult. But in all honesty, even though they used their religion like a weapon, it wasn't the religion that made them do it. It was something else inside them, that called them to that kind of religion. Religions are just a collection of 'tools'. How people use them is their own doing.

 

[PureX]

No belief has a burden of proof, you only have a burden of proof if you care about convincing others to your way of thinking.

This is a very good point.

We are all free to believe anything we want, for any reason we want. We are not free to pose our beliefs as truth to others, however, simply because we want them to be. And we are not free to act on our beliefs when they impinge upon the rights, freedom, and well-being of others, either. What we think, feel, say, and do, are not all actions of equal effect, or equal responsibility. Some of these acts carry more responsibility and require more justification than others.

 

[Jesster]

Bless you. You have certainly given them as much 'grace' as one could, and then some.

I think of these things like addictions. I am a recovered alcoholic of many years (drank for 25, sober for 24), so when I think of it this way I can more easily understand it, and forgive it in others, as I've been there, myself. Recovered addicts and alcoholics like to say that they needed to go through the insanity of addiction to get where they are, now, and to be who they have become as wiser and sober people. Perhaps that's also true for you. You are a wiser, kinder, and more forgiving person for having had to deal with that kind of spiritual, emotional, and intellectual abuse growing up. But in all honesty, even though they used their religion like weapon, it wasn't the religion that made them do so. It was something else inside them. Religious are just collections of 'tools'. How people use them is their own doing.

Sure, I wasn't trying to blame religion here. I've just seen it used as a weapon far too often. Other religious people who don't act this way don't bother me in the least. In fact, I'm dating a Christian right now. His family is also nearly entirely Christian and we get along really well.

I prefer to live and let live, but I've also learned to recognize the signs of people who would do me harm. They tend to be religious most of the time, but that doesn't mean I'm writing off everyone who practices any specific religion.

 

[leibowde84]

There is no burden of proof, for a god belief.

Why not?

 

[leibowde84]

It wouldn't, if the question was solely about an individual's belief or disbelief in God(s).

But if you're going to then turn around and argue that theism is wrong, religion is pernicious and that truth claims must be limited to only the empirical, then it's dishonest to argue that you have a non-position.

I agree. It is only when a theist claims that atheism is illogical, wrong or unreasonable that a theist has the burden of proof.

 

[ArtieE]

No belief has a burden of proof, you only have a burden of proof if you care about convincing others to your way of thinking.

There's no difference between saying "I believe god doesn't exist as I've not seen anything that convinces me god exists", and "I lack a belief in [the existence of] god as I've not seen anything that convinces me god exists" (other than the grammatical awkwardness of the latter).

One person can say "I lack a belief in the existence of god as I've not seen anything that convinces me god exists, and I lack a belief in the non-existence of god as I've not seen anything that convinces me that god doesn't exist." Another person can say "I believe god doesn't exist as I've not seen anything that convinces me god exists." Obviously "I lack a belief in the existence of god" can't possibly mean the same as "I believe god doesn't exist" since there is no requirement to believe god doesn't exist to not believe god exists.

 

[Glaurung]

I agree. It is only when a theist claims that atheism is illogical, wrong or unreasonable that a theist has the burden of proof.

Conversely, If atheism is a non-position, it cannot be logical, correct or rational either. You can't have things both ways.

 

[ArtieE]

Conversely, If atheism is a non-position, it cannot be logical, correct or rational either. You can't have things both ways.

Atheism is just the absence of belief in the existence of gods. You would have to ask the individual atheist if you want to know his reasons for this absence.

 

[Curious George]

Doesn't "equally likely" imply a certain degree of consideration of the probability?
For example, If I flip a coin that can come up heads or tails and I ask if believe the outcomes is heads and you say, "No" because you have no reason to believe the outcome is heads. And then I ask you if believe the outcome is tails and you say, "No" because you have no reason to believe the outcome is tails. Can I infer that you believe the outcomes to be equally likely? (The answer is no, I can't, there is no way for you to know if the coin is fair or reason for me to think that you've considered the chances carefully to arrive at a conclusion)
A better example: What if I roll a six-sided die and ask you if the outcome was a "one" or "not a one"? You would still lack evidence to say one way or the other, but you couldn't say you believed the outcome to be "one" or "not a one" without some degree of investigation. For example, if you assumed the die was fairly weighted and also assumed that only one of the six sides had a "one" , then you could make a calculation that the chances of a "one" is 1 in 6. In this case, he would expect the outcome to be "not a one", but he wouldn't necessarily believe it wasn't "one". He wouldn't be manifesting a belief until he actually acted upon an expectation.
So when a person says he doesn't believe in either the proposition that "God does exist" or that "God does not exist", he is not necessarily committing to an investigation of the odds.


In this case, the negation of the statement "god exists" is the negation of the statement "god does exist". To say that "god does exist" is false is to say "god does not exist". I was very careful to include those statements in my example, so that it would be clear.

In the case of the statement, "This statement is false." The same logic applies.
Let q be the statement "This statement is false."
q is false implies ¬q is true.
¬q is false implies q is true.
¬q means "not (this statement is false)" which means "this statement is not false"
I could say that I don't believe q is true and that I don't believe ¬q is true.

The problem is "This statement is false" is nonsensical.
"This statement" is not a statement to which a truth value may be ascribed. It's similar to saying something like "The number three is continuous." "continuous" is a property associated with functions and "The number three" is not a function. Therefore, the statement "The number three is continuous" is nonsensical.

If you claim that "This statement" simply refers to the statement in which the phrase "This statement" is embedded, then you are self-defining. For example, if I were to say Let t be equal to t+1, when I solve for t, I get that 0=1. The problem is defining t in terms of itself.

In the case of "god does exist", god is something to which the property of existence can be ascribed.

Sounds to me like you have successfully described agnosticism.

Let's review:
The proposition A: god does not exist is niether false nor true- it is unknown.
And
The proposition B: god does not exist is niether false nor true- it too is unknown.

That the liklihood of propostion A is greater less than or the same as proposition B is nierher false nor true- it is unknown.

Need I remind you we are discussing atheism, not agnosticism.

Cheers.

 

[Curious George]

Perhaps I'm responding to wild exaggerations with a bit of exaggeration of my own. Sure, these things happens. But not very often. And most of the time it's not because of religion, it's because of innate anger, willful ignorance, egotism, fear masquerading as bravado, and who knows what else. But you atheists attribute every human failing to religion, if the human that's doing the failing dares speak a peep about God.

I am not religious, so I feel no particular need to defend it. But I am a fan of honesty, and all this hyperbolic religion-bashing by a lot of atheists on here and elsewhere is wildly dishonest, and slanderous of a lot of good religious people in the world.

Very well, i can except that you and others were exagerating. It can happen from time to time. I am not blaming anything here on religion, and I very much doubt you can find a post of mine that does. However, some religious people just as some atheists have short comings. When those short comings relate to their beliefs, then it apt to point out their beliefs did play a part. Now if we want to say that there were other reasons, I am fine with that. In fact I think it would be foolish not to suggest that peoples actions stem from myriad reasons.

But if you are a fan of honesty, why use unqualified statements like "atheists" (as opposed to some or many atheists) and why use combative language like "you atheists?"

 

[PureX]

Very well, i can except that you and others were exagerating. It can happen from time to time. I am not blaming anything here on religion, and I very much doubt you can find a post of mine that does. However, some religious people just as some atheists have short comings. When those short comings relate to their beliefs, then it apt to point out their beliefs did play a part. Now if we want to say that there were other reasons, I am fine with that. In fact I think it would be foolish not to suggest that peoples actions stem from myriad reasons.

If I murder my neighbor with a hammer, the hammer "plays a part" in the crime. But banning hammers won't stop me or anyone else from committing murder. Just as it didn't make anyone commit the murder to begin with. All it'll do is just stop people from building houses, and schools, and prisons to put the murderers in.

But if you are a fan of honesty, why use unqualified statements like "atheists" (as opposed to some or many atheists) and why use combative language like "you atheists?"

Sorry, but ya'll begin to blend together after a while. Same way all Christians begin to look like Westboro Baptists to "you atheists".

 

[Jesster]

Sorry, but ya'll begin to blend together after a while. Same way all Christians begin to look like Westboro Baptists to "you atheists".

Not good enough. You Christians are literally Nazis. You're probably even Hitler himself!

Oh sorry. I got carried away there for a second. You know how us atheists are.

 

[Glaurung]

Atheism is just the absence of belief in the existence of gods. You would have to ask the individual atheist if you want to know his reasons for this absence.

But that's a contradiction.

If atheism is an absence then there can be no reason for it. An absence is a non-thing, it cannot in any way whatsoever be justified. Any attempt at justifying this "absence" is to introduce volition which makes it a disbelief.

The very act of justifying atheism makes that atheism an assertion.

 

[PureX]

Not good enough. You Christians are literally Nazis. You're probably even Hitler himself!

Oh sorry. I got carried away there for a second. You know how us atheists are.

But that's a contradiction.

If atheism is an absence then there can be no reason for it. An absence is a non-thing, it cannot in any way whatsoever be justified. Any attempt at justifying this "absence" is to introduce volition which makes it a disbelief.

The very act of justifying atheism makes that atheism an assertion.

The act of espousing it as a "thing" contradicts it's own meaning.