Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Delirium · 06-12-2013 01:37PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Does it make any material difference? An atheist is someone who lacks a belief in God but holds a belief in some other explanation for God-like questions such as origins, meaning of life, morality etc.

So an atheist is a believer.

an atheist lacks belief in God.
said atheist believes tea tastes better without sugar.
Ergo, the atheist is a believer.

Yeah, there really aren't any flaws in that logic.

antiskeptic · 06-12-2013 01:40PM

koth wrote: »

an atheist lacks belief in God.
said atheist believes tea tastes better without sugar.
Ergo, the atheist is a believer.

Yeah, there really aren't any flaws in that logic.

I would have inserted "believes that our origins are utterly naturalistic in nature" for example.

Or didn't you read the list of issues addressed by contextual use of the word "belief" ?

Pushtrak · 06-12-2013 01:42PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Does it make any material difference? An atheist is someone who lacks a belief in God but holds a belief in some other explanation for God-like questions such as origins, meaning of life, morality etc.

So an atheist is a believer.

At least we're not a belieber <ba dum tish>

No, but seriously, let me see if I can show you how lacking any point the above is. A vegetarian is someone who doesn't eat animal products, but a non vegetarian eats food.

So a non vegetarian is still an eater.

But it's probably worse than that as eater doesn't carry anything. You need to say what you understand by believer. I presume you mean big bang - evolution which isn't universal among atheists, so not useful for discussion.

georgesstreet · 06-12-2013 01:44PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Does it make any material difference? An atheist is someone who lacks a belief in God but holds a belief in some other explanation for God-like questions such as origins, meaning of life, morality etc.

So an atheist is a believer.

If you believe accuracy is important, then it makes a difference. More especially when the context is that atheism is a religion in itself.

You seem to confuse belief with knowledge. For example, I have to choose to believe, or not, in homoeopathy because there is no proof or evidence homoeopathy "works"

I don't have to choose to "believe" in paracetamol because I know it works, I can find good evidence that it works, and consequently have no need to "believe" it works as I know it works.

Why you think I need to invent and make up answers to the questions you pose I have no idea, but you are wrong. I don't have any need to make up alternatives to god in which to believe, and am content to look at the evidence.

antiskeptic · 06-12-2013 01:47PM

Pushtrak wrote: »

But it's probably worse than that as eater doesn't carry anything. You need to say what you understand by believer. I presume you mean big bang - evolution which isn't universal among atheists, so not useful for discussion.

It doesn't matter what the individual atheist believes when it comes to existential questions. All position will ultimately boil down to one or other philosophy which each atheist feels best addresses those questions. And that philosophy will be held on the basis of belief ultimately, since there isn't anyway to prove these philosophies.

Empiricism (for example), a philosophy to which very many atheists who post here are wedded, is something one believes. The philosophy cannot be shown to be true - and certainly not empirically.

Delirium · 06-12-2013 01:48PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I would have inserted "believes that our origins are utterly naturalistic in nature" for example.

Or didn't you read the list of issues addressed by contextual use of the word "belief" ?

Yes I did, and my response was illustrating how silly the line of thinking is.

atheism is a category relating to the belief (or lack their of) of deities. Just by stating that an atheist may hold positive beliefs about another topic, doesn't make atheism a belief.

Belief that the sun will rise tomorrow doesn't make an atheist a believer regarding theism.

georgesstreet · 06-12-2013 01:52PM

koth wrote: »

Yes I did, and my response was illustrating how silly the line of thinking is.

atheism is a category relating to the belief (or lack their of) of deities. Just by stating that an atheist may hold positive beliefs about another topic, doesn't make atheism a belief.

Belief that the sun will rise tomorrow doesn't make an atheist a believer regarding theism.

It's curious how important it seems to those who choose to believe in god also to believe that atheism is a religion and set of beliefs. I wonder why that might be, especially as the the definition of atheism is the opposite of belief, and is defined in the OED as a lack of belief.

tommy2bad · 06-12-2013 01:52PM

georgesstreet wrote: »

You seem simply unable to differentiate or accept that a lack of belief is not a belief. You are simply incorrect and wrong to claim that a lack of belief is a belief in itself.

Oh for God's sake let it go, I have.
I wasn't saying that lack of belief was a belief, I was saying that a belief in the lack of something was a belief. I has forgotten about the position of disbelief. OK?

antiskeptic · 06-12-2013 02:03PM

georgesstreet wrote: »

If you believe accuracy is important, then it makes a difference. More especially when the context is that atheism is a religion in itself.

Accuracy is a subset of a larger notion called satisfaction. An accurate answer is a more satisfactory answer than an inaccurate one. There are various ways of deciding things satisfactory, a very usual atheist lynchpin being empirical method / empiricism - which you gone on to demonstrate in your example.

But faith in the empirical method as a means of accurately arriving at answers to all questions (especially existential ones) is just that. There isn't a way to prove that this is the best way to these answers.

That empirical method is very useful shouldn't be conflated with the notion that it has all the answers to all the questions.

Why you think I need to invent and make up answers to the questions you pose I have no idea, but you are wrong. I don't have any need to make up alternatives to god in which to believe, and am content to look at the evidence.

Empirically only.

antiskeptic · 06-12-2013 02:05PM

koth wrote: »

atheism is a category relating to the belief (or lack their of) of deities. Just by stating that an atheist may hold positive beliefs about another topic, doesn't make atheism a belief.

Yes, but as I pointed out, it makes no material difference that atheism isn't a belief system. An atheist is a person and as a person has a belief system. And is thus a believer*

All atheists are believers as well as being atheists. Does that clear it up.

*where "believer" is a term used to stress the faith-based nature on which a persons belief rests. Eg: empiricism as the way to all knowledge.

tommy2bad · 06-12-2013 02:12PM

antiskeptic
That empirical method is very useful shouldn't be conflated with the notion that it has all the answers to all the questions.

Well as obvious as this is, it's irrelevant to this thread which is being held to the notion of empirical evidence for the existence of God. Any other argument is dismissed or reduced to you believe because you believe without any indication of recognition that not everyone is convinced by solely empirical evidence.

georgesstreet
It's curious how important it seems to those who choose to believe in god also to believe that atheism is a religion and set of beliefs. I wonder why that might be, especially as the the definition of atheism is the opposite of belief, and is defined in the OED as a lack of belief.

And yet we have atheism divided into almost as many subsets as theism, one would assume that lack of something was a singular position. It seems like pregnancy, you either are, or, are not pregnant. Unless some atheists are 'trying'

georgesstreet · 06-12-2013 02:13PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

That empirical method is very useful shouldn't be conflated with the notion that it has all the answers to all the questions.

Who could disagree with that, except those who believe in one of the many gods, and who believes their own god has all the answers.

tommy2bad · 06-12-2013 02:15PM

georgesstreet wrote: »

I dont think I have ever come across someone so obstinate. You have the OED defintion of Atheist.

Lacking belief is NOT a belief in the lack or absence of belief. Athiests don't "believe" they lack belief, they know they lack belief.

As a matter of interest, why is it so apparently important to you to just keep making up this nonsense?

Jesus, leave it man! you seem to be obsessed with a simple error on my part (which I'v admitted and corrected several times). Why is it so apparently important to you to just keep harping on this?

georgesstreet · 06-12-2013 02:16PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

And yet we have atheism divided into almost as many subsets as theism, one would assume that lack of something was a singular position. It seems like pregnancy, you either are, or, are not pregnant. Unless some atheists are 'trying'

You just keep making it up as you go along. Atheism has no subsets, since all it is a lack of belief.

It seems to suit you to "believe" that atheists are formed into "subsets" but you are simply incorrect. But even if they were, so what?

antiskeptic · 06-12-2013 02:21PM

georgesstreet wrote: »

Who could disagree with that,...

Atheists who demand God be demonstrated empirically before the would countenance belief in said God? There's a lot of 'em about. I mean enough to constitute a heavyweight denomination.

except those who believe in one of the many gods, and who believes their own god has all the answers.

Empiricists come under this category. Dawkins for example.

antiskeptic · 06-12-2013 02:24PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

Any other argument is dismissed or reduced to you believe because you believe without any indication of recognition that not everyone is convinced by solely empirical evidence.

A.K.A. not everyone worships at the same altar that Empiricists do.

So much for the notion of atheists disbelieving in but one more god than the Christians believe in.

georgesstreet · 06-12-2013 02:33PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Atheists who demand God be demonstrated empirically before the would countenance belief in said God? There's a lot of 'em about. I mean enough to constitute a heavyweight denomination.

Empiricists come under this category. Dawkins for example.

Athiests demamd nothing. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in god or gods.

I imagine some thiests are very demanding, and also some athiests are also demanding.

But atheism itself demands nothing.

If someone who is an atheist demands you demonstrate something, that is not because of atheism he is asking. Most athiests make no demands of you to do anything.

tommy2bad · 06-12-2013 02:33PM

georgesstreet wrote: »

You just keep making it up as you go along. Atheism has no subsets, since all it is a lack of belief.

It seems to suit you to "believe" that atheists are formed into "subsets" but you are simply incorrect. But even if they were, so what?

Yep I do! It's called thinking, deal with it!
So their are no degrees of atheism no 'Gnostic atheists' no 'new atheists' no 'natural atheists' Yeah keep telling your self that!
If otoh like me you accept that atheism is the non nonacceptance of theistic claims without evidence them we're golden.
Edit to add Without evidence for the claims of theism, not without evidence of the claims being false

georgesstreet · 06-12-2013 02:39PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

Yep I do! It's called thinking, deal with it!
So their are no degrees of atheism no 'Gnostic atheists' no 'new atheists' no 'natural atheists' Yeah keep telling your self that!
If otoh like me you accept that atheism is the non nonacceptance of theistic claims without evidence them we're golden.

Athiesm is a lack of belief in god or gods. There are no degrees of atheists, and to be an athiest all you have to do is lack belief in god. You are probably athiest when it comes to belief in, for example, the sun god. Or thor.

You seem to have some desire to pretend atheism is more than that, and seem to want to believe (note the belief word again) that athiests are more than just individual people who share a lack of belief in one or many gods. As pointed out, you yourself are likely to be an atheist also.

antiskeptic · 06-12-2013 02:46PM

georgesstreet wrote: »

Athiests demamd nothing

..some athiests are also demanding.

Which is it?

But atheism itself demands nothing.

I didn't say it did.

If someone who is an atheist demands you demonstrate something, that is not because of atheism he is asking.

I know that. It's because of Empiricism he demands it. Empiricism: a philosophy (a.k.a.belief system) to which shed loads of atheists adhere.

I'm not arguing that atheism is a belief system. I'm arguing that atheists lacking a belief in God don't belief nothing, they believe something else.

Delirium · 06-12-2013 03:35PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Yes, but as I pointed out, it makes no material difference that atheism isn't a belief system. An atheist is a person and as a person has a belief system. And is thus a believer*

All atheists are believers as well as being atheists. Does that clear it up.

*where "believer" is a term used to stress the faith-based nature on which a persons belief rests. Eg: empiricism as the way to all knowledge.

No it doesn't clear it up.

you posted:

antiskeptic wrote: »

Does it make any material difference? An atheist is someone who lacks a belief in God but holds a belief in some other explanation for God-like questions such as origins, meaning of life, morality etc.

So an atheist is a believer.

You're redefining atheist to something it's not. An atheist can have no beliefs/opinions on the subjects you mentioned, they just say 'I don't know'. Not much of a belief system.

antiskeptic · 06-12-2013 04:07PM

koth wrote: »

You're redefining atheist to something it's not. An atheist can have no beliefs/opinions on the subjects you mentioned, they just say 'I don't know'. Not much of a belief system.

Your clutching at straws

They "can have". But I've yet to hear of one. Once you get someone pronouncing themselves an atheist you also encounter someone who believes in something else.

What proportion of these can be atheists populate the A&A forum do you think? Ones that lack a belief in God but who have no view/interest in existential explanations? A percent? Two?

Delirium · 06-12-2013 04:47PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Your clutching at straws

They "can have". But I've yet to hear of one. Once you get someone pronouncing themselves an atheist you also encounter someone who believes in something else.

What proportion of these can be atheists populate the A&A forum do you think? Ones that lack a belief in God but who have no view/interest in existential explanations? A percent? Two?

Doesn't matter if it's only 1%, it still shows that the statement that atheists are believers to be false. Atheist and believer as you're using them are not interchangable. There may be crossover of the two groups but they're not equal to each other. You're just attempting to tag all humans with the label believer.

georgesstreet · 06-12-2013 04:54PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I know that. It's because of Empiricism he demands it. Empiricism: a philosophy (a.k.a.belief system) to which shed loads of atheists adhere.

I'm not arguing that atheism is a belief system. I'm arguing that atheists lacking a belief in God don't belief nothing, they believe something else.

Everyone believes in all sorts of things. This thread is about atheism and the existence of god. Empiricism is not atheism.

I am an atheist, so you tell me what it is the something else I believe in. I'm really excited to learn this as I don't think I am aware of it, and am also really excited to learn how you know what I believe in, as an atheist.

Brian Shanahan · 06-12-2013 09:06PM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I would have inserted "believes that our origins are utterly naturalistic in nature" for example.

Or didn't you read the list of issues addressed by contextual use of the word "belief" ?

Accepting scientific theory based on available evidence and best fit to observed reality is not, never was, nor will ever be equivalent to belief.

For your information, again, belief is the holding of a certain position true under two scenarios, 1) there is no evidence supporting the held position, 2) there is evidence which shows the position held to be impossible. Therefore holding god to be real is a belief, whereas holding the theory of evolution to be true is not.

Brian Shanahan · 06-12-2013 09:23PM

tommy2bad wrote: »

Well as obvious as this is, it's irrelevant to this thread which is being held to the notion of empirical evidence for the existence of God. Any other argument is dismissed or reduced to you believe because you believe without any indication of recognition that not everyone is convinced by solely empirical evidence.

Well the thing is, aside from empirical evidence, which is evidence gained from observation or experiment, what is there?

As you may recall when you gave what you consider evidence for the existence of god a few days ago, I quickly pointed out in all the cases that what you were giving us wasn't up to the task, because it was either not evidence, or that alternative explanations for the event were better at explaining the event and therefore more likely.

tommy2bad · 07-12-2013 01:59AM

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Well the thing is, aside from empirical evidence, which is evidence gained from observation or experiment, what is there?

As you may recall when you gave what you consider evidence for the existence of god a few days ago, I quickly pointed out in all the cases that what you were giving us wasn't up to the task, because it was either not evidence, or that alternative explanations for the event were better at explaining the event and therefore more likely.

Eh no you didn't you merely dismissed my evidence without arguing against. Ether you misunderstood it or you refuse to accept anything other than empirical evidence. Oh yeah you said that didn't you!.
So again; The proposition that God exists needs to be tested. As we have no way to measure this God we are left with deduction. Presuming if God exists we can see an effect.
I claim that I have experienced this effect so I am convinced of the existence of God. No more and no less. The rest I am working out. I start from position of atheism as I reject the claims of theism without supporting evidence.

sephir0th · 07-12-2013 08:16AM

antiskeptic wrote: »

Once you get someone pronouncing themselves an atheist you also encounter someone who believes in something else.

Wrong, that's a complete non-sequitur.

What proportion of these can be atheists populate the A&A forum do you think? Ones that lack a belief in God but who have no view/interest in existential explanations? A percent? Two?

Irrelevant. Keep digging.

J C · 07-12-2013 10:14PM

koth wrote: »

You're redefining atheist to something it's not. An atheist can have no beliefs/opinions on the subjects you mentioned, they just say 'I don't know'. Not much of a belief system.

For a group that supposedly 'can have no beliefs/opinions', I find that the Atheists on the Boards are quite opinionated ... and they hold to the belief that God doesn't exist with a faith that would put many Theists to shame!!!:):p

Delirium · 07-12-2013 10:20PM

J C wrote: »

For a group that supposedly 'can have no beliefs/opinions', I find that the Atheists on the Boards are quite opinionated ... and they hold to the belief that God doesn't exist with a faith that would put many Theists to shame!!!:):p

atheists on boards not equal to all atheists.

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Comments