Atheism: A belief?

[Willamena]

I make no assessment of the truth value of his conclusion, no.

You do, if you uphold it as a "belief" of his (which you did, in your earlier narrative).

I'm not saying it is a six, I'm not saying it's not a six. I am simply rejecting his claim as invalid - that's the most I can say about it and that's the most that can be said about it.

What is it you're "rejecting" about his claim?

If that kind of reasoning is not enough to make me an atheist in the case of my rejection of various god claims than I truly don't know what could be. Should I proclaim belief in the opposite outcome, perhaps on the basis of some sort of rudimentary probabilistic analysis? I don't think that's necessary.

It's the kind of reasoning enough to make one confused.

 

[Commoner]

At least attempt to understand what I am saying.

I can't even get past the first sentence...

Not all "atheists" "lack the belief in the existence of "God(s)", though a large majority does not believe that "God(s)" exist.

How are there atheists who do not lack the belief in the existence of God(s)? Where has Copernicus said something like that?

 

[Commoner]

You do, if you uphold it as a "belief" of his (which you did, in your earlier narrative).

Where? Give me a "for instance" so that I'll understand what you mean here.

What is it you're "rejecting" about his claim?

Its validity.

It's the kind of reasoning enough to make one confused.

What's confusing about it? If you tell me your dog got scared because a butterfly flapped its wings somewhere in China, I'll probably not consider that to be a valid claim. That doesn't mean I'm making a claim about whether or not a dog that you own might have actually gotten scared - that I can't do. I don't even know if you have a dog.

 

[Orias]

How are there atheists who do not lack the belief in the existence of God(s)? Where has Copernicus said something like that?

Lack a belief is different than not having One. Lack a belief is different than having One.

The absence is merely of a skeptical position. A self determined position, just like everything else.

And what is believed to be true, or self determined is of belief

 

[Commoner]

Lack a belief is different than not having One. Lack a belief is different than having One.

The absence is merely of a skeptical position. A self determined position, just like everything else.

And what is believed to be true, or self determined is of belief

Ok, seriously, I might be too dense to understand you. Did you mean something like "not all atheists lack a belief regarding the existence of god"?

If you didn't, then I do not understand the distinction between "lack a certain belief" and "do not have a certain belief" (except in the sense that "lack" might imply that we are somehow worse off for not having it, but I don't think that's relevant).

 

[Willamena]

Where? Give me a "for instance" so that I'll understand what you mean here.

Its validity.

You said earlier that "there are many different reasons one might use to reject a claim - for instance, a perceived lack of justification for such a belief." I'm pointing out that its validity is not distinct from the truth of the claim --truth is what would give the claim validity, and in turn justify it as something in which to invest belief.

What's confusing about it? If you tell me your dog got scared because a butterfly flapped its wings somewhere in China, I'll probably not consider that to be a valid claim. That doesn't mean I'm making a claim about whether or not a dog that you own might have actually gotten scared - that I can't do. I don't even know if you have a dog.

"Not considering it" is withholding an opinion, and it's not rejecting. Right?

But if you reject the claim, what would make it an "invalid" claim?

 

[Orias]

Ok, seriously, I might be too dense to understand you. Did you mean something like "not all atheists lack a belief regarding the existence of god"?

Most "atheists" push the "lack of belief in the existence of "God(s)"" definition and continually push the "lack of belief" part without realizing themselves and the rest of the definition that follows.

I wasn't sure if you were One of those people or not.

SO somewhere along the lines, yes. Some atheists have no belief regarding the existence of "God" at all. But then again, any stance involving the "God" dichotomy is obviously a position of metaphysical and perceptual language

If you didn't, then I do not understand the distinction between "lack a certain belief" and "do not have a certain belief" (except in the sense that "lack" might imply that we are somehow worse off for not having it, but I don't think that's relevant).

Well that's the thing, belief is a belief period. Whether it is certain or skeptical or "hits the nail right on the head", it is a position in which we use our Minds to substitute our own reality with others.

My reality isn't One where I have to worry about roadside bombs and getting thrown into a prison system made of clay walls. Does this reality exist to some? Yes it does, and out of this stance comes a position where these things are believed and not truly known, simply because it is not in our Nature to accept things contrar to what we believe.

Ignorance is a journey. If battles could truly be won with just the abstract mind then physical violence wouldn't much of an issue, but that is a topic for another time.

 

[FlyingTeaPot]

[youtube]sNDZb0KtJDk[/youtube]
YouTube - Lack of belief in gods

 

[Orias]

[youtube]sNDZb0KtJDk[/youtube]
YouTube - Lack of belief in gods

Ah yes,

"He that is slow to believe anything and everything is of great understanding, for the belief in One false principal is the beginning of all unwisdom."-Anton LaVey

I must add though that "God" is not a court case, and does not posses the innevitability of "truth".

It is a metaphysical concept that is perceived, and "brought into imagination". Any position regarding his existence is of belief, even if it is believed in, believed not to be, and not certain.

One could not possibly be not a belief, since belief is reasoned, and if there is no reason (reason being subject to axioms), well then there is no reason to believe.

 

[Commoner]

You said earlier that "there are many different reasons one might use to reject a claim - for instance, a perceived lack of justification for such a belief." I'm pointing out that its validity is not distinct from the truth of the claim --truth is what would give the claim validity, and in turn justify it as something in which to invest belief.

I'm rejecting the truth of the claim as a whole, not necessarily its conclusion. The claim "as a whole", as was presented is not true (I claim). Whether its conclusion happens to be true regardless of the falsehood of the claim is a separate issue.

"Not considering it" is withholding an opinion, and it's not rejecting. Right?

Because I used the term "wouldn't consider it to be..."? No, of course not. I "considered" the claim, I analysed it, I looked at it from all possible angles and I came to the conclusion that the claim is invalid. I have a definite, clear, opinion regarding the claim. Everything else really is (the bad kind of) semantics.

But if you reject the claim, what would make it an "invalid" claim?

In this case, there is no established causal connection between a butterfly flapping its wing and a dog getting scared on the other side of the world. It was just a silly example, let's not get too bogged down by whether or not that was the actual cause of the dog getting scared - it was meant merely as a demonstration of how you can reject a claim "as a whole" while not even touching the "truth value" of its parts - like that there exists a dog that got scared that you (according to me, incorrectly) believe got scared by the butterfly.

 

[Commoner]

Most "atheists" push the "lack of belief in the existence of "God(s)"" definition and continually push the "lack of belief" part without realizing themselves and the rest of the definition that follows.

I wasn't sure if you were One of those people or not.

SO somewhere along the lines, yes. Some atheists have no belief regarding the existence of "God" at all. But then again, any stance involving the "God" dichotomy is obviously a position of metaphysical and perceptual language




Well that's the thing, belief is a belief period. Whether it is certain or skeptical or "hits the nail right on the head", it is a position in which we use our Minds to substitute our own reality with others.

My reality isn't One where I have to worry about roadside bombs and getting thrown into a prison system made of clay walls. Does this reality exist to some? Yes it does, and out of this stance comes a position where these things are believed and not truly known, simply because it is not in our Nature to accept things contrar to what we believe.

Ignorance is a journey. If battles could truly be won with just the abstract mind then physical violence wouldn't much of an issue, but that is a topic for another time.

You've misunderstood me if you thought I've ever argued that atheists don't have beliefs regarding god, religion or any other subject. I haven't even really argued that atheism is not a belief either - not really, I don't think it's that important. What I'm trying to establish is whether a belief that god does not exist is necessary for someone to be called an atheist - I don't think it is. I'm also not that sure that "lack of belief in a god" is a good definition and I am sure it's definitely not a good definition without any context whatsoever. So, rather than arguing whether or not atheism is a belief or isn't one, I'm interested in what atheism "consists of". Is it the position that we have no belief in a god, is it the position that there are no gods, etc... Once that has been established, I'm sure I'll have an opinion regarding whether or not this thing can also be properly labeled as "belief" - and if so, of what is it a belief.

 

[Orias]

You've misunderstood me if you thought I ever argued that atheists don't have beliefs regarding god, religion or any other subject.

I never thought you were arguing that.
I just provided you points that others have brought up. Essentially, I argued it

I haven't even really argued that atheism is not a belief either - not really, I don't think it's that important.

Well it is important, since it is the topic of the thread

What I'm trying to establish is whether a belief that god does not exist is necessary for someone to be called an atheist - I don't think it is.

I agree

I'm also not that sure that "lack of belief in a god" is a good definition and I am sure it's definitely not a good definition without any context whatsoever. So, rather than arguing whether or not atheism is a belief or isn't one, I'm interested in what atheism "consists of".

What it "consists" of is numerous doctrines and positions made to defend this exact argument.

It is a belief, to some a way of life, to others a defense position to make One comfortable.

Is it the position that we have no belief in a god, is it the position that there are no gods, etc... Once that has been established, I'm sure I'll have an opinion regarding whether or not this thing can also be properly labeled as "belief".

I think to make that more accurate you would have to define "God".

 

[Commoner]

What it "consists" of is numerous doctrines and positions made to defend this exact argument.

It is a belief, to some a way of life, to others a defense position to make One comfortable.

See, now you're just making claims willy-nilly, that can't be constructive, can it?

I think to make that more accurate you would have to define "God".

I don't consider that to be my burden to carry. There is simply nothing that I would consider to be a god that I believe in. That's why I consider myself to be an atheist, period.

 

[Willamena]

I'm rejecting the truth of the claim as a whole, not necessarily its conclusion. The claim "as a whole", as was presented is not true (I claim). Whether its conclusion happens to be true regardless of the falsehood of the claim is a separate issue.

Alright. Here's his claim, "The die has rolled a six," and it's either valid or it isn't. You're rejecting the validity of his claim. What has made you stamp it "invalid"? I'm assuming that it is the probability, without confirmation of the actuality, of its truth value. You've assessed that it's probably false. That "false," however probable, is what Copernicus is talking about.

In this case, there is no established causal connection between a butterfly flapping its wing and a dog getting scared on the other side of the world. It was just a silly example, let's not get too bogged down by whether or not that was the actual cause of the dog getting scared - it was meant merely as a demonstration of how you can reject a claim "as a whole" while not even touching the "truth value" of its parts - like that there exists a dog that got scared that you (according to me, incorrectly) believe got scared by the butterfly.

But you do --you can never not "touch its truth value" parts and still come to a conclusion of validity. Validity depends on truth.

 

[Orias]

See, now you're just making claims willy-nilly, that can't be constructive, can it?

Not really.

This claim can be supported by numerous wikipedia articles, magazines, media, leading scientists and different yet "common" denominations of "atheism", which can refer to naturalism, agnosticism, skepticism, and apatheism.

Do you think these labels exist with no comprehension or digging into their metaphysical meanings?

What naturalism also refers to is some forms of "theism" even, that practice certain "atheistic" stances.

I don't consider that to be my burden to carry. There is simply nothing that I would consider to be a god that I believe in. That's why I consider myself to be an atheist, period.

And there you have it

 

[Willamena]

Having no opinion is fine and good, but it doesn't make one an atheist.

 

[Orias]

Having no opinion is fine and good, but it doesn't make one an atheist.

I didn't say that it did

 

[Commoner]

Alright. Here's his claim, "The die has rolled a six," and it's either valid or it isn't. You're rejecting the validity of his claim. What has made you stamp it "invalid"? I'm assuming that it is the probability, without confirmation of the actuality, of its truth value. You've assessed that it's probably false. That "false," however probable, is what Copernicus is talking about.

No, it's not probably false, it's definitely invalid. I'm not making a probabilistic argument at all - I would say the same when flipping a coin of if the claim was that the dice fell on either a "five", a "four", a "three", a "two" or a "one" but not on "six". What makes it invalid is the failure to provide any justification for the conclusion. Either no argument was attempted or the argument failed somewhere along the line. What that "justification" might be is another topic though, so let's not get into that.

"The dice has rolled a six" is a conclusion from "nothing". It does not take the form of a valid, logical argument - therefore it is not valid. Obviously that doesn't mean the dice can't have rolled a six and it doesn't mean a valid argument is impossible.

But you do --you can never not "touch its truth value" parts and still come to a conclusion of validity. Validity depends on truth.

Yes - the truth of the claim "as a whole", that I have to examine. But that isn't limited to it's conclusion. If the claim only consists of a conclusion, then it's not an argument at all - I just reject it by default as being an invalid argument/claim.

But I don't necessarily make a claim about the truth value of the conclusion (or any other part) apart from the argument - that's not my job and many times it's completely impossible to do. You can have a scarred dog while being wrong in your claim that it was caused by the butterfly. You can have a god while being wrong about your belief that "everything has a cause, therefore a god must exist".

 

[Commoner]

Not really.

This claim can be supported by numerous wikipedia articles, magazines, media, leading scientists and different yet "common" denominations of "atheism", which can refer to naturalism, agnosticism, skepticism, and apatheism.

Do you think these labels exist with no comprehension or digging into their metaphysical meanings?

What naturalism also refers to is some forms of "theism" even, that practice certain "atheistic" stances.

That some philosophical positions are affiliated with atheism or even that atheism is necessary for holding some philosophical positions does not make them atheism and it doesn't make atheism them.

 

[Orias]

That some philosophical positions are affiliated with atheism or even that atheism is necessary for holding some philosophical positions does not make them atheism and it doesn't make atheism them.

Again, I never said "they" were.

Merely that those who hold beliefs about themselves or what they believe to be usually develope it.

Atheist literally means, "without "God(s)", which is in Opposite perception or what is believed to be.