I believe there are no Gods

[Badran]

Ah - special pleading.

I don't think that's special pleading given that he has given justification for the exemption he's making.

 

[Prophet]

I don't understand the atheistic push that "we don't believe, we lack belief". I really don't get it, it seems rather pretensious almost, reminds me of the "Luciferianism doesn't exist" debates. I do not know there is no God, but I do believe reality is Godless. I may lack belief in deities but that is the same exact thing as believing reality is Godless. Someone want to enlighten me on why I'm in the wrong here?

A belief that no god exists is irreducible, and thus, fundamentalist, by nature. This makes defeating on a "pure" atheist child's play for any talented debater. For this reason, many atheists prefer to make agnosticism (ignorance of gods) their default position.

 

[Badran]

A belief that no god exists is irreducible, and thus, fundamentalist, by nature.

No more so than believing a god exists. I know that you haven't suggested otherwise, but i'm saying this just in case.

I don't think either is a 'fundamentalist' position.

This makes defeating on a "pure" atheist child's play for any talented debater. For this reason, many atheists prefer to make agnosticism (ignorance of gods) their default position.

Then of course, there might also be the possibility that that is simply what there position actually is; they don't know.

Or the one they find most reasonable. Once again, you haven't said anything to suggest this not being the case, yet i feel inclined to say it just in case you're suggesting otherwise.

 

[Orias]

I would say, either negative of belief or negative of deity.
As far as I can see both would work for a definition of what atheism means.

If you want to negate the sentence "belief in deity" , you can either negate 'belief' or 'deity'.
So it becomes either:
1) "(no) belief in deity", or
2) "belief in (no) deity".

But what does the term negative imply, to belief or deity? How does it negate belief or deity, when both are involved in the sentence, and in the structure of the concept?

Some people like to label things and put them in little boxes. The indecisive person might not feel his indecisiveness requires a label, but some people actually log on to religious foruns and discuss things like this, and some of them like to put labels on things

It doesn't really matter if you actively post about it, because everyone typically thinks about these things, regardless if they engage in conversation or not. Basically, you don't have to be "smart" to think about God or some type of deeper rooted origin within the universe.

You don't have to believe in God to understand the concept, but you aren't lacking any belief when it comes negating the understanding you have gained simply because you have chose to understand it!

And they have to decide if they are going to label the indecisive person an atheist ot not.

By definition 1) above he is an atheist.
By definition 2) above he is NOT an atheist.

But according to both definitions he would be an atheist.

[EDIT]
Another way to look at this just came to my mind.

Should the label atheist cover ALL the people who are not theists?

If yes, then that would indicate that definition 1) is the correct one, because the indecisive person is not a theist so he must be an atheist.

If no, then you have more than two groups of people . Definition 2) would work fine, but some people will just not fall in either the theist-group or the atheist-group.

I personally use definition 1). It is the most mathematically pleasing one, but one can argue for definition 2) as well.
I both lack the belief in deities and believe there are no deities, so I would end up an atheist either way

No, the label should not cover all people who are not theists. This is because some people can be unaware of who they are with, and even who they are in times and moments that can make them become into a more "divine" being.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't think that's special pleading given that he has given justification for the exemption he's making.

How do you figure?

Do you go around assuming that any claim for which there's absolutely no evidence has a 50-50 chance of being correct?

 

[idav]

I don't understand the atheistic push that "we don't believe, we lack belief". I really don't get it, it seems rather pretensious almost, reminds me of the "Luciferianism doesn't exist" debates. I do not know there is no God, but I do believe reality is Godless. I may lack belief in deities but that is the same exact thing as believing reality is Godless. Someone want to enlighten me on why I'm in the wrong here?

You have to point specifically at a particular type of god in order to reject it. The default is lacking beliefs and rejection comes later when you consider the worlds religions. The other problem is believing there is no god. Why would an atheist invest faith in something not existing?

 

[Badran]

How do you figure?

Do you go around assuming that any claim for which there's absolutely no evidence has a 50-50 chance of being correct?

When it comes to such claims, which are in many cases unfalsifiable to begin with, and some of which are largely based on subjective experiences, while i may or may not take a certain position on them, i always think that technically i must acknowledge that it's completely possible to be true and completely possible to be false, on pretty much equal grounds.

 

[Riverwolf]

So... the whole point is were atheist since we dont believe there is a conscious "God".
So we are default atheists, but its by the default that we lack belief. It isn't by us claiming there isn't one whatsoever.

Its all based on the claim being made.
My claim is that our concept of God is simply our feelings toward the chaotic universe at work.
That makes me a pantheist. It also means Im an atheist....

I've never heard that definition of pantheism before.

However I would be anti-theist if I said i believe you as a theist are dead wrong, God doesn't exist...

No, you'd be an anti-theist if you made the claim that theism is inherently evil.

 

[Riverwolf]

Indicates a negative what?

Whatever the condition in question is.

Not at all, name one person that is not aware of any "God" concepts or concepts about God.

"I've never seen it, so it doesn't exist." Logical fallacy.
Besides, babies.

But that doesn't explain the reasoning of people who are aware of concepts about God but do not believe in them. Just because one is unaware of a certain conceptualization about God does not indicate that they are unaware of the concept of God.

Those who actually believe in no God are also atheists. There's a separate term for it, but at this moment, I'm very tired and can't think of it at the moment.

 

[idav]

Whatever the reason, that isn't the question the OP is concerned with. That is, it's one thing to say that asserting X exists requires "equal justification" that X doesn't exist, and/or vice versa. But it is something else to say that one's belief that X exists (or is true) is equivalent to one's belief that X does not exist (or is not true).

More often than not, mental predicates (e.g. "think", "believe", "suppose", etc.) epistemic or not, are equivalent to the negation of some opposite or alternative. "I believe Obama should win the election" entails "I believe that if someone is not Obama, they should not win the election." Likewise, "I don't believe humans are responsible for global warming" entails "I believe that something other than humans is causing the warming" (and "I don't believe in global warming" entails "I believe that the earth is not warming").

That said, it seems reasonable to posit that not all such statements have an inverse which behaves the way the ones above do. If this were true, every epistemic mental state predicate would entail some equivalent negation of another one. Which means that "I believe the grrynals are urpine" has some inverse/opposite epistemic claim. More importantly, even granting that every belief can be reformulated as an alternative negated claim, why does that make every such pair equivalent? Surely the pair "I believe the world is round" and "I do not believe the earth is not round" is quite different from "I believe Harry Potter is a fictional character" and "I do not believe Harry Potter is a real person".

Thats why a lot of atheists just say "i don't know" and go with some sort of agnostic and whatever they decide that means. Unless an atheist scientist puts faith to believe in the nothing hypothesis. They may find it an option but would they say, "oh that is what I believe happened" without really knowing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

When it comes to such claims, which are in many cases unfalsifiable to begin with, and some of which are largely based on subjective experiences, while i may or may not take a certain position on them, i always think that technically i must acknowledge that it's completely possible to be true and completely possible to be false, on pretty much equal grounds.

Why on Earth would you do that?

As an analogy, what if someone made a claim to you that the next car to drive down your street will be a red Toyota; would you put the odds at 50-50 that the next car really will be a red Toyota?

If not, why not? I mean, you have no evidence for or against this claim... do you? So should the odds be assumed to be 50-50?

 

[Badran]

Why on Earth would you do that?

As an analogy, what if someone made a claim to you that the next car to drive down your street will be a red Toyota; would you put the odds at 50-50 that the next car really will be a red Toyota?

If not, why not? I mean, you have no evidence for or against this claim... do you? So should the odds be assumed to be 50-50?

I'm not sure how that's an accurate analogy. Wouldn't the odds here be completely, sweepingly in favor of all the other thousands, if not hundreds of other cars possible to drive down my street?

IOW, i see two choices. One that a red Toyota will drive down my street. The other being that any other car does. Disregarding certain factors that may unnecessarily complicate things further (such as which cars are more widespread within the city. Since that has nothing to do with your point), all cars would have an equal possibility of passing. When they're all lumped together under one possibility, and the red Toyota in another, how can it possibly be a 50/50 situation?

Put simply, here i think we can actually deduce logically the probability. When it comes to ideas of god(s), while some are more approachable than others logically, in general as a claim there's hardly anything to judge based upon.

 

[outhouse]

When it comes to such claims, which are in many cases unfalsifiable to begin with, and some of which are largely based on subjective experiences, while i may or may not take a certain position on them, i always think that technically i must acknowledge that it's completely possible to be true and completely possible to be false, on pretty much equal grounds.

would you say the same thing to Santa claus living at the north pole?


or pink unicorns with solid copper horns, and yellow polka dots?

 

[Prophet]

No more so than believing a god exists. I know that you haven't suggested otherwise, but i'm saying this just in case.

I'm glad you brought up this potential disagreement because I actually do disagree for what I believe to be strong reasons (but maybe you'll show me the err of my ways).

Let's suppose you're an atheist and I'm a theist. Let's also say we are living in a universe where no gods exist so your position is factually correct. Even in this alternate universe where you are definitely right, what evidence or support can be presented for your accurate position? What support can possibly exist to debate for the non existence of gods?

Evidence for existence of anything which exists could logically itself exist. Evidence for non-existence of something which has never existed logically would never exist. "Pure" or "strong" atheism reaches its definite conclusions on the non-existence of God on basis of non-existent evidence.

I don't think either is a 'fundamentalist' position.

When your beliefs boil down to irreducible, unsupportable statements (or fundamentals), theist or atheist, you are very much a fundamentalist.

Then of course, there might also be the possibility that that is simply what there position actually is; they don't know.

Or the one they find most reasonable. Once again, you haven't said anything to suggest this not being the case, yet i feel inclined to say it just in case you're suggesting otherwise.

And this agnostic position of self-aware ignorance is a reasonable one in my opinion, but hang around many of these people long enough, and you will find that they often extrapolate further belief from the non-existence of gods making their inconsistency in belief obvious. They are interchangeably agnostic and "pure" atheist depending on what is most convenient for the situation.

These people are prone to be intellectually dishonest.

 

[Badran]

would you say the same thing to Santa claus living at the north pole?


or pink unicorns with solid copper horns, and yellow polka dots?

I wouldn't, but only because based on my understanding of both given claims, they are falsifiable, and actually already are (falsified).

 

[outhouse]

I wouldn't, but only because based on my understanding of both given claims, they are falsifiable, and actually already are (falsified).

but I have faith in that dang unicorn

 

[Badran]

I'm glad you brought up this potential disagreement because I actually do disagree for what I believe to be strong reasons (but maybe you'll show me the err of my ways).

I'm always glad to have an open-minded discussion.

Let's suppose you're an atheist and I'm a theist. Let's also say we are living in a universe where no gods exist so your position is factually correct. Even in this alternate universe where you are definitely right, what evidence or support can be presented for your accurate position? What support can possibly exist to debate for the non existence of gods?

Evidence for existence would also itself exist. Evidence for non-existence would not exist. "Pure" atheism reaches its definite conclusions on the non-existence of God on basis of non-existent evidence.

Well, two things:

1) Lack of evidence can be evidence in itself.

2) That is not the only thing based upon which some people dismiss ideas of gods. Logical contradictions within a certain idea, claim or proposal of a god(s) is a good reason for example to reject entirely said particular idea of a god(s).

Now, i don't think that either of those reasons are good enough to say that one believes there is no god in general and act based upon that. But i also don't think that subjective experiences for example are good enough reasons to believe that there is a god and act based upon that.

IOW, both belief in the existence of god(s) and belief in the non-existence of god(s) can be and usually is based on something.

When your beliefs boil down to irreducible, unsupportable statements (or fundamentals), you are very much a fundamentalist.

Not sure why you're using the word "irreducible" to describe someone merely having a belief, but my problem with the word fundamentalist is that it's a word with quite some connotations. According to Wiki:

Fundamentalism is the demand for a strict adherence to specific theological doctrines usually understood as a reaction against Modernist theology, primarily to promote continuity and accuracy. [1] The term "fundamentalism" was originally coined by its supporters to describe a specific package of theological beliefs that developed into a movement within the Protestant community of the United States in the early part of the 20th century, and that had its roots in the Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy of that time.[2] The term usually has a religious connotation indicating unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs.[3] "Fundamentalism" is sometimes used as a pejorative term, particularly when combined with other epithets (as in the phrase "right-wing fundamentalists").

I don't see how any of that follows from simply having a belief in an idea. Whether that be a belief in a god or the belief that there is no god.

And this agnostic position of self-aware ignorance is a reasonable one in my opinion,

I view it that way too.

but hang around many of these people long enough, and you will find that they often extrapolate further belief from the non-existence of gods making their inconsistency in belief obvious. They are interchangeably agnostic and "pure" atheist depending on what is most convenient for the situation.

These people are prone to be intellectually dishonest.

There are two ways for me to look at what you said:

1) The inevitable errors that we all, without exception make. We all contradict ourselves at some points. And i think that it's quite easy to do that when it comes to these issues given its complicated nature, and our significant lack of info in it's regards. In which case i'd be puzzled at why you don't see the same behavior rampant within religious individuals.

2) That you're suggesting a rather more aware state of mind (which seems to be the case), in that those we're talking about are particularly dishonest -- and are merely attempting to shield themselves from having to defend certain things when challenged.

In which case i'd have to point out again that while it may be the case with some (as it is with some religious people as well where they handle their theology in such a way that it can be manipulated to evade criticism when needed), some are most definitely sincere and do quite simply find that to be the most reasonable position. As such they embrace it wholeheartedly, just like some religious people and/or theists embrace certain ideas and/or theologies because they do think it's the most reasonable/ the most fitting with their perception of reality/ the most beneficial etc...

 

[Badran]

but I have faith in that dang unicorn

I really have tried to see what you could be pointing out by saying that, yet i failed.

I never said that merely having faith in an idea provides one with a shield against the idea being evaluated or judged.

 

[lunakilo]

But according to both definitions he would be an atheist.

I need some help understanding what you mean here. The definitions I suggested were:

1) "(no) belief in deity", or
2) "belief in (no) deity".

How can you call a person who cannot make up his mind if he believes in god or not be an atheists by definition 2)?

 

[Warren Clark]

I've never heard that definition of pantheism before.



No, you'd be an anti-theist if you made the claim that theism is inherently evil.

Anti-theist is the opposite of a theist. Which doesn't have to go to the point of hate or claiming its evil...

And pantheism is very vague... there are some pantheists that would say the universe is a god and it is conscious, among many other different views.