Why is atheism merely "lack of belief"?
Almost all atheists nowadays define their atheism as "the lack of belief that gods exist" or something similar. But the more I think about atheism and the atheists I've seen, the less I understand this definition.
I was an agnostic atheist who used this definition myself for over half-a-decade. Now I'm agnostic and don't fully accept that meaning of atheism. I think atheism as "the belief that no god exists" is more accurate, because I believe most atheists are of this sort. I was certainly of this sort. Also, it seems more philosophically accurate to position people in terms of their belief of the proposition "some god exists" or "no gods exist" (its negation).
Similarly, I don't like how it makes theism/atheism a dichotomy. It lumps people that are undecided on the existence of god or have other proposition attitudes in with people that believe that god doesn't exist (a much different position). Furthermore, a theist could easily make the argument that theism is defined as "the lack of belief that no god exists", and that agnostics are really theists then.
Also, it seems like an escape from burden of proof to take the "lack of belief" side. To "believe god doesn't exist" holds a burden of proof, but most atheists claim that only the theist has a burden of proof, even those that clearly believe no god exists.
Those are my rough thoughts on the issue. I'd like to hear why you think atheists insist, or why you insist, on this understanding of atheism. I can think of some reasons, but I'd rather hear from others and discuss them then.
I was an agnostic atheist who used this definition myself for over half-a-decade. Now I'm agnostic and don't fully accept that meaning of atheism. I think atheism as "the belief that no god exists" is more accurate, because I believe most atheists are of this sort. I was certainly of this sort. Also, it seems more philosophically accurate to position people in terms of their belief of the proposition "some god exists" or "no gods exist" (its negation).
Similarly, I don't like how it makes theism/atheism a dichotomy. It lumps people that are undecided on the existence of god or have other proposition attitudes in with people that believe that god doesn't exist (a much different position). Furthermore, a theist could easily make the argument that theism is defined as "the lack of belief that no god exists", and that agnostics are really theists then.
Also, it seems like an escape from burden of proof to take the "lack of belief" side. To "believe god doesn't exist" holds a burden of proof, but most atheists claim that only the theist has a burden of proof, even those that clearly believe no god exists.
Those are my rough thoughts on the issue. I'd like to hear why you think atheists insist, or why you insist, on this understanding of atheism. I can think of some reasons, but I'd rather hear from others and discuss them then.
Comments (70)
Simply, I do not believe that no gods exist and I do not believe that some god exists.
Quoting Jerry
Quoting Jerry
What I do find is that the first statement is passive and the second statement is active. Active statements are more vigorous than passive ones, and are preferable. The most direct statement would be "I do not believe god(s) exists."
Your statement about agnosticism is confusing and is contradictory.
It sounds like you do not know whether gods exist, which is a common meaning of agnosticism
Well, to make the difference a little more clear, I'll point out that "I lack belief that some god exists" is the same as saying "I do not believe that some god exists". Oh, also "some god exists" is the same as "god(s) exist". So the two statements become:
"I do not believe that some god exists"
"I believe that no god exists"
Notice that "no god exists" is the negation of "some god exists".
These are actually not the same. I'm gonna use "the gumball example". Excuse me if you know of this example and reject it, or that you think it doesn't apply. Anyway, it goes:
You have a jar of gumballs. You know the number of gumballs is either even or odd. The question is, "do you believe there are an even number of gumballs"? You would say:
"I do not believe that there are an even number of gumballs" (because there is an equally likely chance that there are an odd number)
Is this the same as saying "I believe that there are an odd number of gumballs"? No, because you also wouldn't believe that there are an odd number of gumballs, for the same reason you didn't believe the number was even.
What you are saying then is "I do not believe that there are an even number of gumballs" and "I do not believe that there are an odd number of gumballs". You don't believe either because, in this case, the possibility is equal, and you can't have a good degree of certainty either way.
That's also my position on the existence of gods, which I use agnosticism to mean, which is also a common use case of agnosticism.
Oh, and you are right, I don't know whether a god exists or not, although most atheists don't claim to know either.
Take your position on God as a page from a book.
If you're agnostic (undecided) then the page is blank.
If you're a theist (believe god exists) then the page contains ''God exists''
If you're an atheist (don't believe god exists) then the page contains ''God doesn't exist''.
Note that in all cases you either did something (wrote) or you did not (left the page blank).
So, it is fully justifiable to ask ''why?'' you wrote (theist/atheist) or did not (agnostic).
You must explain your actions.
I'm agnostic leaning towards atheism. My pen is hovering over my blank page wanting to write ''NO God doesn't exist''.
The burden of proof falls on every position you take.
One interesting point to note is that of a young child who hasn't even thought of God. This I compare to some one who doesn't even have a page on the topic of God. Such people could be labeled as ''lacking belief in God'' and are free from the burden of proof.
However, the moment such a child is introduced to God then he has been given a page and must explain what he does with it.
I always thought the claim that there is no God, a stronger belief than asserting there is a God.
Interesting that you would say a burden of proof falls on an agnostic. I don't think by the standard understanding of the burden of proof you would have to account for a position of agnosticism, as you would not be making any claim either way about a proposition. However, I do sympathize and agree with you that you should be able to explain your position regardless.
Exactly. I never really got those definitions either. It just sounds alot more confusing and unnecessarily complicated, which is the exact opposite of what words are supposed to be used for. It muddles an issue that most people do care about (that of belief) by blurring the lines between the three clearly different positions one can take with respect to a proposition, while adding an element that most people don't care much about at all (that of certain knowledge).
If I were to ask you about your stance on God, like any other issue, I am concerned primarily with your belief on the matter. I couldn't care less about whether you think you're certain about your position than the position you actually hold. And for the most part, it doesn't seem like most other people do either. So I never understood why I'm expected to add an extra term in order to indicate my certainty/uncertainty as if people do give a damn. At least, this is just from my experience.
Quoting Jerry
I would say generally yes, but in the case of the existence of a God, not really. As people would say, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", and the issue of God is arguably about an extraordinary claim, so the burden of proof lies solely with the theist to provide positive reasons for believing in one.
Quoting Jerry
My guess is that it's a numbers game to them (the atheists). A way of inflating their numbers so as to piss a bunch of theists off. Sounds stupid and petty, but really, the entire debate between theists and atheists can get pretty childish sometimes, given how personal the topic of religion is to most people.
Quoting Jerry
Then they're self-declaring as Agnostics, not Atheists.
"Atheist" means someone who believes &/or asserts that there isn't a God.
All of our politicians are closet Atheists. Though they don't assert Atheism, they evidently believe in it.
Someone who doesn't take a position on the matter, who doesn't claim to know, is an "Agnostic".
So yes, the people calling themselves "Atheists" are espousing Agnosticism.
...until they start espousing Atheism, as they always do, sometimes in their next breath.
So, such people, even aside from the name that they call themselves, routinely and regularly contradict themselves about Atheism vs Agnosticism.
What to call them? Does it matter?
There's no burden of proof. Religion has nothing to do with proof, argument, or convincing anyone.
I define metaphysics as statements about what is, where such discussions are, arguable and provable, and are about matters and things that are fully describable and discussable. Other matters, feelings and impressions of what is, I don't regard religion as part of metaphysics. I suggest that some, maybe many, Theists don't regard God as an element of metaphysics.
If you're interested only in matters discussable, describable, arguable and provable, then stick with science, metaphysics, etc.
it's probably because they want to believe, and show you, that they're "more scientific than thou", and are believers in the religion of Science-Worship, a pseudoscientific religion characterized by the belief that Science covers and explains all, and that the material world is the ultimate reality and the ground of all being. and that physical science describes all of Reality. (In other words, the religion of Science-Worship is either the same as the metaphysics of Materialism--a metaphysics that doesn't hold up to examination--or is at least believed-in by the same people. But Materialism's insupportability is another topic.)
Michael Ossipoff
I've been struggling with these labels for quite some time now. I had a difficult time making sense of these positions, especially the way atheists defend themselves by saying atheism=lack of belief and using that as a reason to not prove the nonexistence of God.
However, atheism, agnosticism, theism are, well, philosophical positions so they must, by definition, have reasons to support them.
Consider an idea x. Suppose it hasn't been thought of by anyone at all. For me this constitutes a ''lack of belief'' in x as opposed to assuming a mental posture on x (existence/nonexistence/undecided) which definitely requires good reasons.
Strange. Your own system seems to indicate a lack of a belief in anything. You do not explain how it is that atheists cannot have lack of a belief, but you can.
Isn't your lack of belief based on a lack of evidence? That is the same reason atheists have a lack of belief in the existence of gods.
To say that "Because we do not have evidence does not mean that god does not exist" could be said for the existence of anything, including elves, hobbits, dragons and orcs. We simply do not go around believing in the possibility of everything for which there is no evidence for. We must filter the possibilities some way, and through empiricism and rationality, we can.
Quoting StreetlightX
I agree. Like professing a belief or non-belief in a pink invisible unicorn would make no sense either.
It's merely useful terminology in a society where religion/spirituality are so widespread.
This might seem odd, but I view the term theist to simply mean a belief that a god (possibly gods) exists.
In spite of popular notions and assumed causal connections neither imply that there must be a system of belief (aka religion) connected to this answer to a single question does a god or do gods exist?.
Indeed there is a religious system of belief termed theism, but I'd say all believers in the religious system of belief of theism are indeed theists, but not all theists need to have a religious system of belief of any kind connected to this single statement of belief of god existing. It is a very popular notion that one thing lead to another, but belief in a god(s) does not directly imply much less guarantee a sort of religious system of belief resulting from this single answer to a single question.
Regarding the answer of the atheist not believing in the existence of gods, it could well be possible that this popular notion of if one's answer to the question must lead to having a system of belief; thus this false notion of causality bleeds over to the not believing in the existence of god. Maybe the assumption that a system of belief must follow from this single answer to a single question is the problem?
Here's a bit of an odd thing to say, but I'll say it.
If one is a monotheist and believes in say... god X as the only god existing, then this monotheist must be said to be an atheist in respect to all other incarnations of gods who are not god X. So, in respect to say... god Y this particular monotheist who believe only in god X as the only existing god must be an atheist in respect to god Y.
There isn't really a need for a complete system of belief for the rejection of god Y, but simply the belief that god X is the one and only real existing god is enough to seal the deal for them.
For an atheist who reject the notion of any and all gods existing there really doesn't need to be a system of belief necessary for this rejection of all other gods, as the rejection itself is enough to seal the deal.
I will grant you this...
In my experience in dealing with atheists quite often they tend to from a sort of group mentality. I used to joke with them explaining that they are really theists who have rejected classical gods and have replace thiem with an anti-god god that they worship through the grand prophet... the newly deified Darwin, try to draw inspiration from the periodic table of elements and usually attend craft beer tastings as a sort of replacement to going to a formalized church service. It is there that they discuss the writings, teachings and podcasts of Dawkins, Harris, Dennett and Hitchens and enjoy speaking out loudly to one another the grand observations they've made and have misinterpreted from watching various science documentaries they've viewed on the Discovery Channel... usually narrated by Morgan Freeman... while wearing a t-shirt with a Jesus fish with feet. (anyone else met these guy?)
Sorry I'm off the track a bit...
I have no idea if any of that makes much sense or helps. If you are still interested in bits of it I can always add more words in the hope to enhance my clarity.
Meow!
G
Looks like you've categorically rejected that which you haven't studied to its depths.
That's not atheism. That's simple non-theism.
Quoting Jerry
It's meant to obviate the need to argue for atheism. Your typical nu atheist who spouts this nonsense is intellectually lazy.
Quoting Jerry
That is what it is, yes.
By describing an individual by his or her disbelief in theism suggests that this individual has something prove in defence of his or her position, whereas the onus is entirely on the theists to back up their extraordinary claims.
Theism is 'theory' that theists hold to be true. Atheism is not a competing theory; it requires neither explanation nor defence, and such has no need for a term to describe itself.
I think atheism is believing in the negation of the claim 'god exists', IE 'god does not exist', rather than being like the rock. An atheist isn't someone who hasn't encountered the idea of God, they're someone who rejects belief in that idea. Note that this isn't speaking about knowledge of god.
It's also a pretty lazy rhetorical strategy, there's a belief about lack of belief that it's somehow the default position about god; so any claim about god suffers a burden of proof. This isn't really necessary, knowledge whether substantive or demarcational always requires some speech in the court of reason. I'd prefer it if atheists owned their rejection of god as a metaphysical and practical choice rather than painting themselves as still part of a prelapsarian nature before encounter with the idea of god.
If we are doing philosophy of religion in the analytic sense and arguing about the existence of God, then there are precisely and only three basic positions to take: theism, atheism and agnosticism. I cannot tell you how many times I have encountered vitriolic idiots claiming agnostic atheism is not only a coherent position but also the "default" position.
BOTH theists and atheists have a burden of proof. If you are an atheist, then you believe God does not exist. You don't have to be extremely confident about this - it's fallacious to assume beliefs can only be held with absolute certainty.
In my experience, "agnostic atheism" is a veiled attempt at naturalistic question-begging. The reason why "agnostic atheists" claim to be the "default" position is because they take naturalism (and oftentimes scientism) to be true as a given, when the reality is that naturalism just is the argument. Hence why they tend to get so goddamn touchy when this presupposition is questioned - it means they actually have to start doing philosophy and provide arguments! Naturalism just is an argument for atheism - but "agnostic atheists" don't want to have to argue for it. They want naturalism to be a given, and thus force theists to have all the burden of proof. Nonsense question-begging.
Just like anything else, if you believe something then you ought to have reasons for believing what you do. It's very, very simple. Atheists need to provide reasons just as much as theists. The agnostics have the default position, not the atheists. All this talk about "lack of belief" and "default positions" is quite literally nothing but question-begging nonsense on behalf of the atheistic crowd.
If we move away from analytic philosophy of religion and into previous forms of philosophical religious discussion (such as Scholasticism, or post-modern theology), then we arrive at different ways of construing the debate. Scholasticism will still accept atheism as a valid position but will absolutely demand the atheist provide good and compelling reasons for believing atheism to be true. And post-modern theologians might scrap the whole "debate" as misguided and re-construe the positions in terms less "metaphysical" and more social, moral and phenomenological.
Actually, this has come up several times here in the past.
I like the fact that you didn't deny what I said, :fire: :ok: :eyes:
This division is a vestigial contingency derived from the status quo from which it emerged. It is not a necessary division.
Quoting darthbarracuda
An atheist is one who attempts to disprove the existence of God/gods, but there is also a group who have no reason whatsoever to believe in supernatural beings or have no interest in what those who do believe in them have to say on the topic, and consequently don't waste their time in trying to disprove that which there is no reason to believe in in the first place. I suspect that most of those categorised as atheists fall into this group, but calling them atheists seems wrong since one need not be opposed to something that one considers does not exist.
Atheists play into the theists hands by according them respect and a platform. The category to which I refer accords theists about as much attention as the Easter Rabbit.
Then these people are not doing philosophy, and thus are not philosophical atheists. Call them what you want - irreligious, non-believers, whatever. If they consider the existence of God a worthless debate that wastes time, then I have the right to ignore them. They are not participating or contributing.
Quoting jastopher
Yup, as I said before. When you treat a debate about the existence of God as akin to a debate about the Easter Rabbit, you have forfeited your right to be listened to. It's disrespectful, a straw man, and a waste of everyone's time.
In terms of evidence, and thus reason to engage in argument regarding the existence of either, there is none for either entity. Debating the existence of God is not philosophical it is engaging in petito principi and shouting tu quoque at whoever disagrees with you. As long as there are atheists willing to be drawn into this quagmire theists will have their own existence guarenteed.
Only by ignoring it will we be able to free ourselves of theism.
Isn't this just a massive petito principi? Aren't you just begging the question against theism? You come here with an already pre-made picture of what God is, what theism is, what religion is, and what philosophy of religion must therefore be. No wonder people don't take your atheism seriously. If you aren't even open to discussion then there's no point in even engaging with you as an atheist.
The fact that you have such a shallow, narrow and overly-hostile attitude to theism shows you are not familiar with the literature surrounding philosophy of religion, and clearly are unaware of sophisticated forms of theism that are compelling and serious. This is not the courtier's reply: this is you just not reading, and going into a gunfight armed with a toothpick.
Come back when you learn how to read.
See, now you're a non 'atheist'. Welcome!
Atheists generally try to stake out the weak position of "lack of belief" instead of "belief in non-existence" because the former is defensible and clear while the latter is not. Hard atheism and soft atheism are fair distinctions.
In my experience most atheists are soft atheists...
The term "agnostic" implies soft atheism (if you don know either way, generally you lack belief but there are exceptions (i.e: i don't know but i believe because of faith)).
Coloquially agnosticism has come to mean the exact same thing as soft atheism ("atheism" has never really been about proving the non-existence of god(s), if we're fair: it has been about rejection) which is that there is no belief either way.
No belief is a tricky concept to behold for some people especially when ideas with emotions attached are at stake. Let me give you an unemotional example:
This emotionally neutered analogy for the claim that god exists can be used to contextualize a wide gambit of these imperfect labels which we so ineffectually yet lovingly bandy and berate:
Agnosticism used to mean that we cannot have knowledge or evidence about god either way (it was a claim about empirical and epistemic limits, not about belief) (no access to the god closet)
Ignosticism goes further and says that arguing about the existence of god is incoherent because god might be any number of things (any kind of ball, or something jagged).
Theological non-cognitivism goes even further and says that all this talk is incoherent and circular to begin with because we have no access to god's closet and the descriptions we do have are of arbitrary human origin and therefore circular.
theser views are from whence the spaghetti monster came-a-flying and the claim that babies are not god believers was birthed. If you are dipped into its magical waters, you will gain the dem(a)i-go(gue)d like powers of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris...
We should all take a grain of salt with these labels though. They're not perfect and we shouldn't expect the world to always to conform to neat and discrete categories that can be easily defined.
If you ever find the delays which fussing over labels causes in a given discussion to be significant, why bother to use labels (a time saving device) in the first place?
There is a God
There is not a God
I don't know, there may be something?
A particular type of 'having cake and eating it too' appears to apply to the 3rd agnostic option. It would appear that the 3rd option has the high moral ground. But that is only because the agnostic (rather selfishly IMOP) chooses not to engage constructively in the debate.
The 'debate' as such is confined to those who wish to align themselves with either of the combatants.
It might be argued that agnosticism is a form of intellectual cowardice or duplicity in that it occupies a duality of choice and permits the agnostic to create a personal and self serving God-reality AND a non-God reality. I think one MUST choose a side and validate ones decision in spite of the difficulties or the ferocity on the battlefield. The ferocity of the argument seems relative to the lack of definition as to what this 'God' thing actually might be, and I suspect that Spinoza has the most evolved and unappreciated concept of same.
M
Indeed, but even if we could prove full blown Yaweh nothing would really change.
And even if it's all an ultimately meaningless game of Jumanji that we play, there will always be a need for the kind of emotional catharsis that it can offer to the scorned on all sides of the fence, including those straddling the top, and also to those who have cognitively left the court.
For as long as we exist, or at least think that we exist 'meaningless jumanji" or meaninglessness is ultimately impossible.
Thought exists and thought has meaning. If reality defies meaning to us personally we still cannot escape the meaningful nature of thought itself. Meaninglessness is only potentiated at ones death.
Thought=Life= meaning.
M
The most interesting topics addressed were the outdated empiricist assumptions behind typical atheism and the increasingly popular option to “not reject the null hypothesis.”
Ah, good. That's close enough to what I'd say. Gold star for you. It's not strictly about the former, and it's better defined in terms of the latter.
That's the best place to start. However, from that point onwards, there are still traps to be avoided, like the confusion related to rejection and affirmation. Rejection allows for at least two distinct types of atheism, which we could call 'soft' and 'hard'. It doesn't force an atheist into the position of 'hard atheism': those who make that argument are being illogical.
There are those cases where I'd say that there's a God because of a trivial definition (e.g. God is love, God is the universe); those cases where I'd say that there's no God (e.g. where it's impossible); and those cases where I'd say that it's possible, yet there's not good enough grounds for belief either way.
So, really, which category I fit is relative to- and dependent on- further detail. But broadly, without such detail, and if I had to pick an option, then I would pick the third option, which would actually be the most reasonable under those circumstances, in spite of your uncharitable and ill-considered judgement of it. But generally, I have found that the term 'agnostic' isn't as useful as the term 'atheist' for someone of my position, because, for one thing, it can give the wrong impression, as your reply attests. I'm hardly a fence sitter or shy away from debate on this topic. I've been called a staunch atheist. But also because, generally, I have found that it doesn't matter as much that I'm reasonable enough not to rule out that which is at least possible, and that what's of greater relevance is my rejection of the belief in God on the basis that it's unwarranted, and that these possibilities can be dismissed from serious consideration as implausible or incredible. It's not a shrugging of the shoulders, or seeing it as 50/50, like some agnostics do.
Not a big fan of your soccer ball problem, it is just a conclusion with out a premise-
If you said
1 I own a soccer ball
2 I keep my sporting equipment in a closet
Therefore there is a soccer ball in the closet
Then we may have a view if your conclusion is valid or not
I think if you want a seat at the table, you should have a position that there is or is not a God.
Yeah, well, I think that those who have that simplistic attitude of, "You're either with us or you're against us", should go and sit somewhere else and make room for others with a more reasonable attitude.
What I am saying is, it is not a position to say proposition A may or may not be true, or this or that point in support or defense of proposition A may or may not be valid. It is way beyond reasonable. It is objectively true that there is or is not a God. It needs no discussion or defense. It also is not very helpful.
But that's not the full extent of what the position is about. Positions on this topic - most topics even - don't tend to be taken based on mere possibility, so I don't agree with making that the focus, irrespective of whether or not I'm one of those who think that it may or may not be true, or even that we don't know either way. What's relevant is not so black and white. What's of relevance is what a position has or has not got going for it, the pros and cons, things like evidence, arguments, logic, reason, plausibility, and explanatory power. These things can tip the scales for or against to some extent. It's just not true that my position must be that there's a God, or conversely, that there's no God, to be of relevance. That really does make you come across as someone who has very limited experience of such debates.
That does not mean that on any particular item in the argument an agnostic can not have a valid or helpful view. But at its core equivocation is not a position.
If you will accept that an important part of what we believe to be true is how it effects what we do. How can agnosticism have any impact on what we do. Pray on tuesdays and thursdays? Accept absurdity on Monday Wednesday and friday?
The real question at hand (if one wishes to know or define a God) is How has the Cosmos been constructed and how does it function?
Science has brought us a considerable way down this road, however this is a journey that can only be completed by Philosophy. I think a far more pertinent question is why Philosophy remains paralyzed whilst Science can clearly advance along this road. I have rasied this question on another thread and would be most appreciative of input to this question, as I feel it is the first to be asked, before an acceptable model of the Cosmos can be constructed.
It might be stated with some confidence that Science has arrived at an impasse in respect of Quantum Mechanics. The current impasse is summarized in the truth or falsity of Bell's Theorem, which suggests that Science has arrived at the question of Determinism, in which case she (Science) can proceed no further until Philosophy gets the proverbial finger out.
The world is waiting.
M
That isn't the position, as I interpret it. Having a different position to the two positions which you would count isn't the same as having no position on the question. It's not just black or white, there are shades of grey inbetween.
Quoting Rank Amateur
If you mean to refer to my position, then whence the equivocation? What do you even mean by that? In many respects, my views are indistinguishable from those of your typical atheist. I consider myself to be an atheist. And I fit the definition of an atheist, so long as it's not defined too narrowly - although even then I fit the definition in some cases. I'm firmly more on one side than the other, I just don't take it beyond what I judge to be reasonable. Are you suggesting that I must do so in order to be of any relevance or to even have a position in the first place? Because that's how you're coming across to me. I find that absurd.
Quoting Rank Amateur
I reject prayer, as do other atheists. That has an impact on what I do. You won't find me in church, praying to a god that I don't believe in, to intervene in ways that I don't believe stand any real chance of happening.
Another way of looking at this is that soft atheists take the position of rejection both ways. We reject theist claims and arguments and we reject hard-atheist claims and arguments. We maintain that we're ignorant of the truth (soft-atheism) usually because we believe the truth is inaccessible (agnosticism).
Quoting Rank Amateur
A conclusion without a premise huh? :)
YOU'RE RIGHT! It's just a random claim out of nowhere for which you have exactly zero means of confirmation or disconfirmation. To boot, it's equally plausible that there is a soccer ball in my closet as it is plausible that there is not, so it's not as if any reliable appeal to opinion can be made. On top of this, the existence/non-existence of a soccer ball would change nothing for you, so any emotional pull you might feel toward affirming the existence of god should not apply in this hypothetical...
But what is your answer to the soccer-ball query? Do you believe there is a soccer-ball? Do you believe there is no soccer-ball? Or do you lack belief?
From my perspective, god claims (for and against) are generally unsupported, just like a conclusion without a satisfactory premise (evidence). The tables I'm unfit to dine at are in the evidence-allergy section I assure you ;)
Thanks!
Which leads me back to your soccer ball.
My answer is, I don't care if there is or is not a soccer ball in your closet. The question has no importance to me.
If however you said if you guess correctly, I will give you 5,000 dollars I would work to try and answer correctly.
If you said, if you guess there is a ball, and you are right, you get 100 million dollars, if you guess there is not a ball, and you are right you get 35 cents. I guess there is a ball.
Quoting Rank Amateur
I agree that there either is or is not an uncreated creator, but I must ask by which form of "reason" one can establish a quality argument for or against the existence of uncreated creator? We can choose to believe whatever we like, but what logical or rational reasons are there to do so?
The problem that I'm facing is that the original claims theists make are broad, ambiguous, and unsubstantiated. From my perspective it's not a choice between black and white, it's a choice between green with yellow polka-dots or NOT green with yellow polka-dots; and when a Buddhist feeds me their claims it's mauve with lime stripes, or not. Uncreated creators, self-created creators, created creators, interactive creators, indifferent creators, loving creators, one creator, many creators, jealous creators, forgiving creators, vengeful creators, ambivalent creators, et cetra, et certa. White is actually is an amalgam of many colors; it's ill defined.
Quoting Rank Amateur
That's why the hypothetical uses a soccer-ball and not something you might have emotional stake in. If your answer to the soccer-ball question is that you don't care, how do you feel about the existence of Zeus (a non-deist deity to be precise)? Surely you care to take a position on the existence of leprechauns though, don't you want to get their pots of gold? I'm joshing but this does illustrate my take on your dichotomy. You can say it's either X or not X and therefore 50-50 or easy to address, but you would also be negating the rest of the overgrown theist alphabet.
Quoting Rank Amateur
If we're going to truly embrace the dice, I wish to point out that guesses aren't exactly free: we spend time, influence, energy, and freedom by choosing beliefs with sweeping ramifications in so many areas of life. With that in mind, welcome to Babylon's Casino!
Here we use monté-mono-theist-carlo rules, so you really only have enough resources to place one bet, so choose wisely! Have a seat at the roulette wheel! You could bet on red or black and address the broad question, but nobody knows what the odds pay for that and everybody knows betting on hard atheism actually pays out nothing. Alternatively you could bet on one of the many numbers of the roulette wheel. Making such a precise prediction from a guess is obviously more difficult than playing red or black and so the pay-outs are rumored to be better, but oddly the pay-outs are number specific so be careful what you bet for.
So you only get one bet from a sea of options in an ocean of games, and everything is a wrong answer but one, and there isn't always a consolation prize for getting it wrong...
What do you get for not playing?
You become free of the confounding influence of arbitrary beliefs that have no basis in reality, for better or for worse...
But if you absolutely must place a bet, do it somewhere where they actually comp you regardless in the form of something like community support or financial assistance (in this life).
there are a few reasonable arguments for there being at one time an un-created - creator. I understand there are challenges. And I have acknowledged that the counter position is not un-reasonable. But the assertion that a theistic belief is un-reasonable is more rooted in a particular prejudice than in argument.
and the addition of Pascal is not really for the mechanics of the wager, but for the need to bet.
The game is on, whether one acknowledges it or not. There either is or is not a God.
But my real objection to agnostic or soft atheism - is, it is really a semantic hedge - disguised as reason. If our actions are the manifestations of our beliefs - most/all agnostics - are practicing atheists - just holding on to a hedge. Or as above - conversely - umpires in the argument - calling different positions in or out while sitting comfortably in the chair above the court, indifferent as to the outcome of the match.
What I can say - without equivocation, is none was intended.
Then you are an Atheist. There are two propositions.
1. I believe god exists.
2. I believe god does not exist.
If you do not accept #1 as true, you're an Atheist. It doesn't matter what your answer is to #2, as that would be the difference between weak and strong Atheism. If you accept #2, you would be a Strong Atheist (or Gnostic Atheist), but if you reject #2, you would be a Weak Atheist (or Agnostic Atheist).
It gets frustrating when people try to be in the middle, and call themselves Agnostic. That is completely irrelevant to the question of belief. Agnostic & Gnostic are about Knowledge, while Theism & Atheism are about Belief. So when someone says, "Do you believe a God exists?", you're answer should pertain to belief, not knowledge. The question was NOT "Do you know a God exists?". To that question, you could say you're Agnostic, meaning "I don't know." - But to the first question of, "Do you believe a God exists?" - If you're answer is anything other than yes, then you are an Atheist. If your answer is "I don't know" or "I'm not sure" or "I am not convinced", then you clearly lack the belief that a God exists, which makes you an Atheist.
In my view, both the theist and hard-atheist views are unreasonable. In the past I've searched extensively for proofs of god (for and against) and I've never come across a clear and satisfactorily reasonable one. If you wish up to take up some such argument, I welcome you to do so, and it will be my pleasure to attack it should it prove less than reasonable.
Quoting Rank Amateur
And why is there a need to place a bet exactly? Because if we don't God might hold our abstinence against us? What if the real test is to not hold unreasonable beliefs, and by making presumptions about god, you will actually be losing the bet?
I think you feel that there is a very large need to take a position with respect to your own beliefs because they encompass so much of your world-view (I don't mean this in a disparaging way, you seem like a nice person). But a Bhuddist feels a similar sense of urgency with respect to deciding whether or not reincarnation is real because similarly it encompasses much else in their belief structure.
There either is or is not flying spaghetti monster deity. The Pastafarians who worshship him will tell you that you must take an actual position on its existence, that you must take a position whether you want to or not.
Like the soccer-ball question, you would probably say that you simply don't care and that nothing seems to actually be at stake. For me, having emancipated myself from religion and theistic belief so long ago, there re almost no remaining god-shaped holes that I haven't already filled with something else. Whether or not god exists changes nothing for me as it very clearly does not reveal itself in this life, and presuming that god-belief is important for the next life is a presumption that comes out of nowhere and has no rational advantage over its rejection or negation.
I keep giving you comparisons which contrast with how you might honestly approach the actual question, and I'm only doing so to try and convey what the dichotomy looks like from a position where nothing other than the truth is at stake. I could claim that this life is actually a video-game, and that getting a high score is therefore the most important thing in existence... It's all either a video-game or not a video game and score either means everything or it does not mean everything. The game of deciding to believe this or believe it's negation is on whether one acknowledges it or not.
There a million and one such games. I would rather just play them by not playing instead of going through each one and making claims that require effort to substantiate. There is a very big difference between choosing to believe in the non-existence of something (broad) and rejecting belief in something specific (or likewise, broad).
Quoting Rank Amateur
Umpires exist because impartiality correlates with making accurate judgments. I'm not exactly impartial, but I'm not an umpire. It's more like a basketball court: you keep trying to sink a basket and we keep blocking you, but we don't care to carry the ball to the other end of the court for a basket of our own.
If we don't know the truth of something, there is nothing demanding that we take up beliefs in regards to said truth. If someone puts a gun to our heads and forces us to guess, so be it, but nobody is doing this. It's a humility; we don't have access to god-knowledge.
Thanks for all - appreciate the comments. All due respect - this statement certainly sounds like you have taken a position - in your actions and in your thoughts. All that really remains is to acknowledge it as such. I would also assume you arrived at this position from reason, which is in conflict with your statement:
" In my view, both the theist and hard-atheist views are unreasonable"
maybe we just have a difference on assumptions of truth. I believe one can believe something to be true, and act accordingly, by fact, reason, or faith. And make no value judgement of which is "more true"
I read into your comment that your definition of truth seems to lie only in what is fact. And reasoned beliefs of truth have less weight.
That to me is a very different position than indifference - which I would have no argument against. Although I am skeptical that any thoughtful person is truly indifferent to the question - Which returns me to my view that the agnostic is not a reasoned position - or even an absence of reasoned position - it is a hedge against the position of your beliefs and actions.
I have no issue that my world view impacts my position - as I think yours and others does as well.
If you can convince me I've taken a hard position I'll happily fess up, but it's been years and years since I've done so (been foolish enough to take a hard position). Since I lack belief in god I have had to replace my moral and existential frameworks with things that aren't founded in theism. I lack belief, and so naturally I lack the religious intellectual paraphernalia that comes with it, but this does not equate to hard atheism.
I don't wear a diving cap because I'm not a diver, but to abstain from wearing a diving cap doesn't mean I'm a hard-anti-diver. I don't need to justify my irreligion with a hard claim, else everyone with their own religious narrative would demand a proper rebuke.
I'm waiting for a proper proof first.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Some beliefs can be more rational than others, especially when they're supported by evidence. Holding positive beliefs about the existence or non-existence of god is unreasonable because there is no satisfactory evidence either way. Reason is a form of evidence; "reasoned beliefs" can be fine, depending on the quality of the reasons.
You say that my hard position (which I am telling you I do not occupy) is a hedge against my beliefs and actions...
Why? What actions are you imagining me carry out? What beliefs are you referring to?
Are you envisioning the immoral life of a hedonistic sinner who forces himself into hard atheism to counter his divine guilt?
In the same way that you are likely indifferent to the question of whether or not aliens exist out there in the universe, or whether Zeus existed, I have grown likewise indifferent to the broad (and vague) question of god's existence entirely. I no longer see it as an important question because there's no reliable way to answer it and I no longer gain anything by believing that god exists. Why should I bother?
Quoting Rank Amateur
By virtue of not seeing a god anywhere, I don't therefore incorporate whichever doctrine I believe corresponds to ultimate truth into my behavior and decisions. But believe it or not, I do leave room in my worldview to be proven wrong. I don't know what's going on outside the observable universe (let alone everything within it), what came before it, what might come after it, or why.
I do believe things like: a big bang happened about 13.75 billion years ago which gave rise to space-time and matter, and that a slow evolution of complexity in the hierarchies and goings-on of matter eventually lead to stars, heavier elements, planets, water, proto-?RNA?-replicators, cellular life, multi-cellular life, complex biological organisms, complex learning brains, and us.
I believe these well reasoned and evidenced beliefs because my brain is one that prefers evidence-based modeling of reality (because it gives more reliable predictive power and hence greater power to maintain and increase the emergent complexity that we are inexorably a part of).
These beliefs really do impact my actions and subsequent beliefs. That I lack god-belief and its consequences is the wrong detail to focus on to try and understand my position. The list of things and gods which I lack belief in are unending, you'll never understand me that way.
Quoting Rank Amateur
As a non-Buddhist my position is impacted by not believing in the God-Head, not believing in reincarnation, and not regularly reciting any number of mantras with supposedly mystical qualities. In the same sense with reference to Christianity, I don't pray to Jesus, I don't look to the bible to establish right and wrong, and the sabbath is for personal veneration, not papal.
...Everyone was so shocked to see the emperor without any clothes on. The fool should have bade everyone else get naked too, then to them he would have seemed regular and normal...
‘X is true’=theism
‘X is false’= atheism
‘X is either true or false but I don’t know which’=agnosticism
There are more positions.
‘X is either true or false but it is unknowable which’=scepticism?
‘X doesn’t make sense’=verificationism?
‘X may not make sense’=?
‘X may or may not be true and may or may not make sense, all seem equally likely and I feel better not thinking about it’= Pyrrhonism
‘‘X is true’ and ‘X is false’ are pragmatically indistinguishable’=Epicureanism?
These positions do not all mutually exclude. It is possible to be agnostic or sceptic and nonetheless hold a belief that X is true or that X is false. It is possible to believe X and, modestly, that the belief may be incoherent. It is possible to behave as if X is true and either believe it isn’t or not believe it is (not have a belief
The first hurdle is understanding X. What is god? ‘Uncreated creator’ is kinda coherent: maybe science can help with that. ‘Higher and caring intelligence that can affect the natural order’? I struggle.
Jerry’s ‘I do not believe that no gods exist and I do not believe that some god exists’ at the start of this thread is closest to Pyrrhonism.
do your thoughts exist ? does your understanding of love, hate, fairness, exist ? all are outside nature as i think you are using it
I agree - i think the best reasoned argument can only defend a position that at least at one moment of time - there was an un-created creator or necessary being - belief in the God of the bible, or Torah, or Koran is a belief by faith - outside of reason
At least that's how militant Atheists come off to me.
If you ever want to see militant Agnostics look up the South Park episode where Kenny goes to a foster home with strict Agnostic parents. It's a laugh.
Agnostic is at 50%.
An atheist understands the world without a God, and has no doubts which crop up when things get bad.
Would a person of 30, normal intelligence disbelieve in Santa because
1 He didn't get the gift that he wanted?
2 The world makes no sense without the Santa Claus mythos?
3 Because he was told that Santa Claus is not real?
4 Because most people don't believe in Santa?
I believe that he doesn't believe in Santa because he understands the world and what Santa really is.
I suspect that it's just that some people like the sound of the word "Atheist", and want to have that self-designation while dodging the burden-of-proof that goes with actual Atheism..
The problem with such "Agnatheists" is that typically in the next breath they're making genuinely Atheist assertions. So, in a way they're right to call themselves Atheists: They're Atheists except when they're professing Agnosticism by another name.
Obviously an assertion of Atheism or Theism has equal burden of proof. But it isn't a matter for assertion, argument, debate or proof. ...not that we let that stop us, right?
Michael Ossipoff
Anybody having the zeal to promote and explain his religious views, especially trying to counter other views sounds like a preacher to me.
A %100 religious person is more similar to an atheist.They both are thoughtful, have a definite set of answers, are unwavering, They just happened to get a different answer.
The insulting phrase "there are no atheists in foxholes" is typical of an agnostic, not an atheist.