Atheism: A belief?

[Commoner]

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.

Ok...it doesn't mean atheism "consists of" them either.

 

[Willamena]

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 die 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 die can't have rolled a six and it doesn't mean a valid argument is impossible.

In the case that no argument was made to justify a claim, just a claim made, where's the validity in rejecting it? Based on what? "No argument" is not an argument --for or against. It doesn't lend truth or falsehood to a claim, so doesn't valid or invalidate.

By taking the claim as a "conclusion" of the die roll, do you mean that the claim is believed? i.e. upheld as true? That's how I interpreted it. And isn't belief an implicit argument, that the claimant holds what is claimed up as true? Isn't that --the possiblity of it being true --what is being rejected?

The very act of rejecting implies that falsehood was recognized, just as the act of believing implies that truth was recognized.

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 a valid 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. 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".

What is "the conclusion" of the claim? I might have misunderstood.

 

[Orias]

Ok...it doesn't mean atheism "consists of" them either.

Explain.

Atheism is contrar to theism, atheism consists of not holding a belief in "God".

But that's not the point of a "a belief in "God(s)", it's the point if it being believed period.

 

[Commoner]

In the case that no argument was made to justify a claim, just a claim made, where's the validity in rejecting it? Based on what? "No argument" is not an argument --for or against. It doesn't lend truth or falsehood to a claim, so doesn't valid or invalidate.

My sister is taller than my mother. I am taller than my sister. Therefore, I am taller than my mother. - valid argument.

Therefore I am taller than my mother. - not a valid argument

Has nothing to do with whether I have a sister or whether I am actually taller than my mother.

By taking the claim as a "conclusion" of the die roll, do you mean that the claim is believed? i.e. upheld as true? That's how I interpreted it. And isn't belief an implicit argument, that the claimant holds what is claimed up as true? Isn't that --the possiblity of it being true --what is being rejected?

Yes, yes, upheld as true or at least claimed to be upheld as true. No, the possibility of it being true is not being rejected. That would be quite irrational (in most cases).

The very act of rejecting implies that falsehood was recognized, just as the act of believing implies that truth was recognized.

Yes, and I hope for the last time, the falshood is in the argument (or lack there of). I nor anyone else have direct access to "truth". Either it is demonstrated that something is true or it is not. If it is not a claim of it being true is rejected.

What is "the conclusion" of the claim? I might have misunderstood.

It doesn't even matter. Pick any example you want - like:

My sister is taller than my mother. I am taller than my sister. Therefore, I am taller than my mother. - valid.

My sister is taller than my mother. I am taller than my sister. Therefore, I am shorter than my mother. - invalid.

You can instantly say that one of them is not valid. Yet you know absolutely nothing about whether or not I actually have a sister, if she is taller than my mother or if I'm taller than her. Absolutely nothing. No "truth value" anywhere.

 

[Commoner]

In the case that no argument was made to justify a claim, just a claim made, where's the validity in rejecting it? Based on what? "No argument" is not an argument --for or against. It doesn't lend truth or falsehood to a claim, so doesn't valid or invalidate.

That's fine - then it cannot possibly be considered a valid argument, can it? What do you do with claims that are not supported by a valid argument? If you think "reject" is not the right word to use, I'm fine with that, but that doesn't really change anything...

I would say I reject such claims as "not an argument", but really - whatever you want to call it. In plain language - you look at it, it doesn't work, you don't base your beliefs on it. With god claims, for me this is all that's needed to use the "atheist" label (sufficient as far as "claims" and "beliefs" go, at least).

 

[Commoner]

Explain.

Atheism is contrar to theism, atheism consists of not holding a belief in "God".

But that's not the point of a "a belief in "God(s)", it's the point if it being believed period.

Ok, this is getting really frustrating because I'm really having a hard time understanding you. I have no idea (really, NO IDEA) what you meant by this, for instance: "But that's not the point of a "a belief in "God(s)", it's the point if it being believed period."

 

[Orias]

Ok, this is getting really frustrating because I'm really having a hard time understanding you. I have no idea (really, NO IDEA) what you meant by this, for instance: "But that's not the point of a "a belief in "God(s)", it's the point if it being believed period."

I am not debating whether belief in the definition of "atheism" makes One a belief, merely that One considers themselves an "atheist" or, One "without God".

 

[Commoner]

Explain.

Atheism is contrar to theism, atheism consists of not holding a belief in "God".

Sure, in the same way vacuum consists of "not being matter".

 

[Orias]

Sure, in the same way vacuum consists of "not being matter".

That's an extremely inaccurate analogy.

It's more like, in the way nothing consists of everything.

It is Opposition, because it is not in agreeance with the perception of all Men.

 

[Commoner]

That's an extremely inaccurate analogy.

It's more like, in the way nothing consists of everything.

It is Opposition, because it is not in agreeance with the perception of all Men.

I'm afraid you've lost me again, Orias. :thud:

 

[Orias]

I'm afraid you've lost me again, Orias. :thud:

I am sorry friend.

I do my best to explain what I can, and I try and keep it as simple as possible. People tend to make me twist my own words and subjects with beliefs and manipulations of their own.

 

[Willamena]

It doesn't even matter. Pick any example you want - like:

My sister is taller than my mother. I am taller than my sister. Therefore, I am taller than my mother. - valid.

My sister is taller than my mother. I am taller than my sister. Therefore, I am shorter than my mother. - invalid.

You can instantly say that one of them is not valid. Yet you know absolutely nothing about whether or not I actually have a sister, if she is taller than my mother or if I'm taller than her. Absolutely nothing. No "truth value" anywhere.

"Truth value" has nothing to do with whether you actually have a sister, either. It's true that if A is taller than B, and C is taller than A, then C is taller than B. Doesn't matter if there's really any C's, B's or A's out there in the world. Truth resides in that conclusion (C is taller than B).

The room is dark. The die rolled six. The claim is true or false, but in saying that it is believed, we say that someone holds it to be true, and imply that they have justified knowledge.

Yes, yes, upheld as true or at least claimed to be upheld as true. No, the possibility of it being true is not being rejected. That would be quite irrational (in most cases).

It's not irrational. We're just talking about the possibility of truth in the claim.

Yes, and I hope for the last time, the falshood is in the argument (or lack there of). I nor anyone else have direct access to "truth". Either it is demonstrated that something is true or it is not. If it is not a claim of it being true is rejected.

If the claim "the die rolled six" is rejected, a falsehood in the claim was recognized.

Not talking about actuality at any point here.

i.e. You're rejecting the claim, and we haven't even turned on the lights yet.

 

[Commoner]

"Truth value" has nothing to do with whether you actually have a sister, either. It's true that if A is taller than B, and C is taller than A, then C is taller than B. Doesn't matter if there's really any C's, B's or A's out there in the world. Truth resides in that conclusion (C is taller than B).

The room is dark. The die rolled six. The claim is true or false, but in saying that it is believed, we say that someone holds it to be true, and imply that they have justified knowledge.


It's not irrational. We're just talking about the possibility of truth in the claim.


If the claim "the die rolled six" is rejected, a falsehood in the claim was recognized.

Not talking about actuality at any point here.

Look, at this point, this is all semantics. We're arguing about whether or not what I consider to be sufficient "commitment" in order to be called an atheist is properly described as "rejecting the claim" instead of actually having a discussion about the issue. So I'll just say it again - you're confronted with claims and arguments about god, you consider them, you decide that none of them work as justification for a belief in god - for whatever reason - therefore you don't have a belief in a god and you are, as far as I'm concearned, an atheist. That's it - that's all that needs to be said about it. Whether that can be accurately described as "rejecting god claims" or not - couldn't care less at this point.

 

[Commoner]

"Truth value" has nothing to do with whether you actually have a sister, either. It's true that if A is taller than B, and C is taller than A, then C is taller than B. Doesn't matter if there's really any C's, B's or A's out there in the world. Truth resides in that conclusion (C is taller than B).

Correct. Now consider this: "if A is taller than B, and C is taller than B, then C is taller than A". Is this argument true or false? How about just the conclusion (let's say we accept the premises)? Is it true? Is it false?

As far as logic goes, this is not a valid argument and I reject it as such. By that I make absolutely no claim about the conclusion itself being either true or false - and I don't need to.

It's not irrational. We're just talking about the possibility of truth in the claim.

Rejecting the possibility that something (except something self-contradictory) exists or existed somewhere (anywhere), at some point in time is quite irrational, for instance.

If the claim "the die rolled six" is rejected, a falsehood in the claim was recognized.

i.e. You're rejecting the claim, and we haven't even turned on the lights yet.

Ok, look - I've said it repeatedly that when I say "I reject the claim" that "the die rolled six", I do not mean by that that a six was not rolled. Rather I am rejecting it on the basis that it is not a valid claim or a valid argument - I've explained why I think it isn't.

 

[Magic Man]

Ok, seriously, I might be too dense to understand you.

Don't worry, it's not you. Orias doesn't like to make sense when he posts. He seems to think nonsensical ramblings will be taken as profound and not questioned.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"Truth value" has nothing to do with whether you actually have a sister, either. It's true that if A is taller than B, and C is taller than A, then C is taller than B. Doesn't matter if there's really any C's, B's or A's out there in the world. Truth resides in that conclusion (C is taller than B).

The way you've structured this, it does matter if they exist. You've structured your premises as conditional statements: you didn't say "let A be taller than B"; you said "if A is taller than B".

If a universe where "B is taller than A" or "A is taller than C" is possible, then it is possible for your statement "C is taller than B" to be false.

The room is dark. The die rolled six. The claim is true or false, but in saying that it is believed, we say that someone holds it to be true, and imply that they have justified knowledge.

Right - so rejecting the claim may come from something like rejecting the implicit idea that the claim is justified. Rejecting the claim may be as simple as acknowledging that the person claiming that the die shows six must have been guessing. Because the lights were off, he or she would've had no way to actually read it.

It's not irrational. We're just talking about the possibility of truth in the claim.

No: not just truth, but knowledge as well.

If the claim "the die rolled six" is rejected, a falsehood in the claim was recognized.

And the claim includes not just the factual matter of what number is showing on the die, but the implicit idea that whatever is being claimed, it came from some sort of actual knowledge. Saying "you're just guessing" is a rejection of the claim. When you turn on the lights, you may very well see that the die came up six (in fact, there's a 1 in 6 chance that this will happen), but this would've been a coincidence.

 

[Willamena]

Right - so rejecting the claim may come from something like rejecting the implicit idea that the claim is justified. Rejecting the claim may be as simple as acknowledging that the person claiming that the die shows six must have been guessing. Because the lights were off, he or she would've had no way to actually read it.

Right --I agree that rejecting the implicit idea that the claim is justified is based on something, a rationale that says, "the claim isn't necessarily true." This is the "probably false" that was referred to. We really do base rejection on a falsehood.

No: not just truth, but knowledge as well.

Right --alleged as knowledge, if it's claimed that the claim is believed by the claimant --belief adds the weight of truth to the issue. Else, it's just a claim.

And the claim includes not just the factual matter of what number is showing on the die, but the implicit idea that whatever is being claimed, it came from some sort of actual knowledge. Saying "you're just guessing" is a rejection of the claim. When you turn on the lights, you may very well see that the die came up six (in fact, there's a 1 in 6 chance that this will happen), but this would've been a coincidence.

Well, it includes an alleged fact about the die. The factual matter of what side of the die has rolled isn't relevant to any of this. It isn't relevant to the truth or falsehood seen in the claim, on which we will base our judgement of "accept" or "reject". We will make that judgement and follow through without ever knowing the truth of what side of the die actually rolls.

Actuality's really not important in this scenario.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Right --I agree that rejecting the implicit idea that the claim is justified is based on something, a rationale that says, "the claim isn't necessarily true." This is the "probably false" that was referred to. We really do base rejection on a falsehood.

I disagree. Or at least, I think that we can base rejection on the basis that the facts of the claim are false, but I think it's also possible to base rejection of a claim on the basis that the claim doesn't come from knowledge, or isn't a reliable inference.

To change the hypothetical scenario to a coin flip instead of a dice roll, I could reject the claim "the coin is heads" just as easily as I rejected the claim "the die rolled six", but I certainly wouldn't be able to say that it's "probably false" that the coin is heads. In fact, until I actually looked at it, I'd consider it equally probable with the possibility that it came up tails.

Right --alleged as knowledge, if it's claimed that the claim is believed by the claimant --belief adds the weight of truth to the issue. Else, it's just a claim.

And as such, it can be rejected on the basis of not believing that it's knowledge, which doesn't necessarily imply believing that some other factual claim is true.

Well, it includes an alleged fact about the die. The factual matter of what side of the die has rolled isn't relevant to any of this. It isn't relevant to the truth or falsehood seen in the claim, on which we will base our judgement of "accept" or "reject". We will make that judgement and follow through without ever knowing the truth of what side of the die actually rolls.

Yes... because we base it on our assessment of the knowledge of the person who is the source of the claim. We don't need to turn the lights on for me to reject a claim about how the die was rolled. It's enough for me to realize that the claimant couldn't have seen the die either, so he isn't speaking from a position of knowledge.

 

[Orias]

I disagree. Or at least, I think that we can base rejection on the basis that the facts of the claim are false, but I think it's also possible to base rejection of a claim on the basis that the claim doesn't come from knowledge, or isn't a reliable inference.

Yes, but this applies mostly in factual areas of material.

I would be inclinded to agree with you, to an extent though. People reject what they do not like, while others are more open minded in the claim of "knowledge".

But then again, claiming "knowledge" cements Oneself into that position.

To change the hypothetical scenario to a coin flip instead of a dice roll, I could reject the claim "the coin is heads" just as easily as I rejected the claim "the die rolled six", but I certainly wouldn't be able to say that it's "probably false" that the coin is heads. In fact, until I actually looked at it, I'd consider it equally probable with the possibility that it came up tails.

Sounds like common sense

And as such, it can be rejected on the basis of not believing that it's knowledge, which doesn't necessarily imply believing that some other factual claim is true.

But it does, since the rejection of One Aspect, implies belief in another. Even if this Aspect has yet to be defined.

Yes... because we base it on our assessment of the knowledge of the person who is the source of the claim. We don't need to turn the lights on for me to reject a claim about how the die was rolled. It's enough for me to realize that the claimant couldn't have seen the die either, so he isn't speaking from a position of knowledge.

That is a good concrete example.

But when it comes to applying metaphysics and abstract conceptualizations I don't think you could get any more accurate than, "belief".

 

[Orias]

Look, at this point, this is all semantics. We're arguing about whether or not what I consider to be sufficient "commitment" in order to be called an atheist is properly described as "rejecting the claim" instead of actually having a discussion about the issue. So I'll just say it again - you're confronted with claims and arguments about god, you consider them, you decide that none of them work as justification for a belief in god - for whatever reason - therefore you don't have a belief in a god and you are, as far as I'm concearned, an atheist. That's it - that's all that needs to be said about it. Whether that can be accurately described as "rejecting god claims" or not - couldn't care less at this point.

Ok, with your point happily conceded, would you consider it a belief? (IMO the topic of the thread)