Foundations for Atheism

[Jan Ardena]

wesmorris,

LOL. Jan, how would you know? Are you an athiest? If not, then you really have no idea what you're talking about.

Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings.
Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist" position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as "strong atheism".


The above is a quote of the the first two paragraphs of the moderators thread in this forum, 'Definitions: Atheism and Agnosticism, under the subtitle "what is atheism."
Would you say that this is a fair description of modern atheism?

Even if so, you are not every athiest and as such are performing under your mandate of talking out your terminally confused ass.

No I'm not every atheist, as you pointed out, but I'm not going to start listing exactly which type of atheist I am refering to. It should be obvious that I am refering to the type of atheist who holds similar views to that of Sarkus, which are, IMO, the majority in this forum. If I am incorrect, then please feel free to correct me.

To sit back and demand the onus is on the theist to prove Gods existence, is a ploy to win the argument and give justification to your belief.

Jan, that is stupid. If you make a claim and expect someone else to believe it, you have to be able to motivate them to do so.
Hence, you need to provide whatever evidence it takes to overcome that person's skepticism of your claim. That's just the deal.

But what if I don't make a claim? Is expressing a belief in God, and arguing the reasons behind such a belief, making a claim that God exists?
Also, there are very few theists (nowadays) who come on sciforums "expecting" atheists to believe what they claim or believe. The majority just want to discuss/argue.

That's why the "onus" is on the person making a claim.... ANY claim. Der frickin DUH Jan. You're such an obnoxious, snippy bitch. Wait maybe that's me. Wait maybe that's me. Either way, as is par for your course - your argument is crap.

Wait a minute, where's this shite coming from? You don't even know me and you're throwing insults. I'm just here for the discussion, so please CALM THE FUCK DOWN.

If the theist cannot cannot prove the existence of God, then his position is one of belief.

You don't think it'd be belief either way?

Not the same type of belief being discussed.

Oh, and what's proof Jan?
Bad crops this year, a sacrifice and good crops next year? A book? Okay, that may work for you... but you really should try to understand why others may not buy the same shit you do.

I'm not really sure where your coming from here.
You're too emotional wes.

Of course in doing so, your glass house of a belief system could be shattered, so it's easy to see why you're so doggedly protective of it.

Wes, what is the point of this?

You run around with your verbal glass cleaner, squeeking it clean ad nauseum. What do you care that others don't accept your "proof"? Eh? Why is it such a threat to you?

Same as above.

Jan, I'm totally cool with your belief system. Do it up however you like. The issue is when you choose to discuss it with others who don't buy it and you simply can't relate to why.

You say you are cool with my system? BS, is what I say to that. Right now you seem very intolerant of me. At least have the decncy to be honest.
Plus, what do you mean "...your belief system." Since when have I disgussed it with you,
or anyone?

I've never talked about my personal belief system on this board. I never promote any particular religion on this board, so I don't understand what it is you think I am selling.

You think of them as evil to placate your desperate attempts not to face the fragility of your mental dwelling. Is that what jesus would do Jan? Would he pity them? Would he damn them for questioning his claims?

Okay.


Jan Ardena.

 

[Sarkus]

It should be obvious that I am refering to the type of atheist who holds similar views to that of Sarkus, which are, IMO, the majority in this forum. If I am incorrect, then please feel free to correct me.

If the atheist cannot prove the non-existence of God, then his position is one of belief. To sit back and demand the onus is on the theist to prove Gods existence, is a ploy to win the argument and give justification to your belief.
If the theist cannot cannot prove the existence of God, then his position is one of belief.
If you replace the word 'belief', in your post, with the word 'faith', then you begin to make sense.

I'm confused, Jan.
From the first of these quotes you seem to be saying that you are mostly relating to those atheists who neither believe god exists nor believe he doesn't exist (i.e. like me), yet the second of the quotes above clearly shows you are referring to those atheists who actually have a belief that god doesn't exist.

Which type are you referring to??

 

[Jan Ardena]

You are not understanding the position of the (weak) atheist - which I think most of us on this site are.

Option 1: Theist: Belief in God.
Option 2: (Strong) Atheism: Belief in the non-existence of God.
Option 3: (Weak) Atheism: No belief in God nor in the non-existence of God.

Options 1 and 2 are both illogical / irrational - due to the utter lack of evidence for both - and both rely equally on faith.

Option 3 is often confused with Agnosticism.
But it isn't.

All Atheists will counter those who believe in God with "prove it".


So, if you continue to refer to all atheists as though they are of the "strong" variety then you will continue to be misled by the term "atheist".

Okay. You declare options 1&2 illogical and irrational, thus declaring option 3 to be the opposite. Right? Yet you ask theists to prove their claim of belief in God, who is by every accounts, trancendental and immaterial. Right?
On what grounds do you base "prove it" to be logical and rational?
Also, to ask such a question implies either that God could possibly exist even though you know He cannot possibly (by definition) be proven to exist my modern scientific methods, or you are well aware that such a being could not possibly be detected under those conditions, but still ask the impossible of a mere mortal, thereby setting a trap. If the latter, then it is clear that while you may not believe in Gods existence or non-existence, you have a belief in something which is not rational, or based in logic.

PS. Forget about the response to wes.

Jan Ardena.

 

[wesmorris]

wesmorris,

Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings.
Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist" position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as "strong atheism".


The above is a quote of the the first two paragraphs of the moderators thread in this forum, 'Definitions: Atheism and Agnosticism, under the subtitle "what is atheism."
Would you say that this is a fair description of modern atheism?

Actually not quite no. An "absence of belief" is the natural state of things. It does not "come about". It just IS from the time a person is born. That "lack of belief" can be changed into "belief" through a number of means.

No I'm not every atheist, as you pointed out, but I'm not going to start listing exactly which type of atheist I am refering to. It should be obvious that I am refering to the type of atheist who holds similar views to that of Sarkus, which are, IMO, the majority in this forum. If I am incorrect, then please feel free to correct me.

An apology. When I read your stuff this morning it came off and snippy, snide, etc. I was projecting some of what I percieve to be your history onto it. My bad.

I have no idea what the "majority of athiests" think, nor what Sarkus thinks in terms of whether he's a "weak" or "strong" athiest. IMO, a strong athiest is as presumptive as a theist. Let the posters fall where they may in that regard.

But what if I don't make a claim? Is expressing a belief in God, and arguing the reasons behind such a belief, making a claim that God exists?

I'm interested to hear the argument to how it isn't. To me, yes... it is. If you "beleive in god" it's implicit that you think god exists and have thusly made a claim.

Also, there are very few theists (nowadays) who come on sciforums "expecting" atheists to believe what they claim or believe. The majority just want to discuss/argue.

You mean expecting athiests to believe what the theists claim or believe? Well if they EVER did it would be pretty stupid, as by the definition of their position they don't.

Wait a minute, where's this shite coming from? You don't even know me and you're throwing insults. I'm just here for the discussion, so please CALM THE FUCK DOWN.

I only know what you present here, which is well.. I'll drop it and remind you of my apology above.

But regardless of the mode, the point stands. Someone who makes a claim has the onus to prove it. You were implying otherwise, which seems completely senseless.

I'm not really sure where your coming from here.
You're too emotional wes.

Funny you'd say that there where I was pretty calm. I'm emotional enough I suppose. That would be a negative if it affected whether or not I present a reasonable argument.

You said: "If the theist cannot cannot prove the existence of God, then his position is one of belief." I bring into it the notion that proof is relative. Why the surprise? Whatever is said by any person is founded in belief/faith.

Wes, what is the point of this?

I was ranting I guess. Pardon. It was early and I thought I had a point.

You say you are cool with my system? BS, is what I say to that. Right now you seem very intolerant of me. At least have the decncy to be honest.

No I really am cool with it. However, when you put it out there on the chopping block, I think it's ridiculous that you'd apparently expect people not to dice it up. I'm not intolerant of you, merely annoyed at what I percieve to be a holier than thou tone in pretty much everything you ever say. Hehe, probably a two way street there, such is the way of things.

Plus, what do you mean "...your belief system." Since when have I disgussed it with you, or anyone?

Since you've been here? Do you not expect it to be inferred from your commentary?

I've never talked about my personal belief system on this board. I never promote any particular religion on this board, so I don't understand what it is you think I am selling.

Always theism. I'd swear you have so talked about it, though it may have been a long time since and who knows how you've changed or not. I'm not going through all your posts to figure it out though, so I'll yield the point.

Either way, I must have been on crack this morning and shouldn't have attacked you like that. You're right, I don't know you. My apologies again.

 

[Cris]

Prince,

It does. Atheism rejects the notion of God. "God does not exist" marks the cornerstone of belief for Atheism. Agnosticism makes no claims.

We usually take atheism to mean absence of belief, while only some atheists will assert non existence. Certainly Descartes and Anselm take the hard approach that you want to use as part their Ontological variations.

I haven't followed your reference yet, but I have my own at home that I studied quite some time ago - I'll have to revise I guess. It is curious that it hasn't come up here before, at least not as far as I can remember. From what I do recall it was gibberish since it relied on a concept being true simply because it could be imagined, or something similar.

But really you'll need to distinguish between the weak and strong versions of atheism. And atheistic agnosticsm is simply atheism.

 

[Cris]

prince,

53.

Excellent I like precision. And this is certainly progress beyond 42.

 

[Cris]

Prince,

One might be able to defend God's existence without recourse to empricial claims, if logically he is necessary.

I think that is impossible since at the route of any logical deduction the base premises must rest on empirical data. I.e. at some point logic must reference reality to reach a real conclusion.

 

[Jan Ardena]

wesmorris,

Actually not quite no. An "absence of belief" is the natural state of things. It does not "come about". It just IS from the time a person is born. That "lack of belief" can be changed into "belief" through a number of means.

"An "absence of belief" in the sense you're saying (natural state) implies ignorance, not choice. When the person is of certain level of developed intelligence (age), then they are faced with choices. A reasonable person would not not believe in God, without some reason, this reason must have foundations in some kind of belief system. eg..you may believe there is no scientific evidence which proves the exsitence, or need of God, while at the same time believing that science can possibly prove His existence, all the while knowing that it can't. Hence your belief would be irrational and illogical.

An apology.

Apology accepted.

But what if I don't make a claim? Is expressing a belief in God, and arguing the reasons behind such a belief, making a claim that God exists?

I'm interested to hear the argument to how it isn't. To me, yes... it is. If you "beleive in god" it's implicit that you think god exists and have thusly made a claim.

You are indeed correct, in that I have claimed my belief in God, and that i do think God exists, and i have always stood by that claim. But I have never claimed that He exists as in, God does exist. There is a difference.

But regardless of the mode, the point stands. Someone who makes a claim has the onus to prove it. You were implying otherwise, which seems completely senseless.

If there is a way to prove to you that I believe God exists, please mention it.

That would be a negative if it affected whether or not I present a reasonable argument.

On a personal note, I don't know why you have to resort to that, I think you have enough about you to just present good, sound arguments and rebuttals.
The thing is when someone steps up to challenge your points, one can expect at some time your emotional behaviour. So I would say it negitively affects the whole conversation. But that's only my point of view, you must do as you see fit.

You said: "If the theist cannot cannot prove the existence of God, then his position is one of belief." I bring into it the notion that proof is relative. Why the surprise? Whatever is said by any person is founded in belief/faith.

This is my point. Everything is supported by belief of some sort or another, so to not believe in God is to have a belief in something that does not support the belief in God. When all is said and done either we believe God exists or not, period. There can be no other option.

No I really am cool with it. However, when you put it out there on the chopping block, I think it's ridiculous that you'd apparently expect people not to dice it up.

This is why I'm here, I want my points to be diced up. How else can we learn?
And where's the fun in making an argument and not wanting anyone to argue with you?

I'm not intolerant of you, merely annoyed at what I percieve to be a holier than thou tone in pretty much everything you ever say. Hehe, probably a two way street there, such is the way of things.

You're most probably right, although it is hard to accept such criticism. But as you say, in my defence, it is a two way street.
If I have caused any offence to you in the past, please accept my apologies.

Jan Ardena.

 

[stefan]

An "absence of belief" in the sense you're saying (natural state) implies ignorance, not choice.

how so,if a person has never had a belief, how is he ignorant,

When the person is of certain level of developed intelligence (age), then they are faced with choices. A reasonable person would not believe in God, without some reason,

if a person had no belief in the first place why would he need a reason.

this reason must have foundations in some kind of belief system.

why if the person never had a belief, we are all born atheist. your basing your whole argument on the assumption we all believe/believed first.

 

[valich]

We usually take atheism to mean absence of belief, while only some atheists will assert non existence. ..... But really you'll need to distinguish between the weak and strong versions of atheism. And atheistic agnosticsm is simply atheism.

Regarding the terminology. If I just bluntly come out and say, "God does not exist," I don't think there is any other word to use except to say I am an atheist?

 

[wesmorris]

wesmorris,

"An "absence of belief" in the sense you're saying (natural state) implies ignorance, not choice.

I think it's either. I'll attempt to explain.

When the person is of certain level of developed intelligence (age), then they are faced with choices. A reasonable person would not not believe in God, without some reason,

I don't understand that, as my impression of a "reasonable person" differs. IMO, a reasonable person does not simply believe what they're told and as such, would NOT construe belief from someone having exposed them to the concept of "god". Thus, the "lack of belief" is preserved even beyond ignorance. Changing state from "lack of belief" to "belief" must be motivated. I don't see how you think "any reasonable person" should change state on exposure to the idea. Please explain if you don't mind.

this reason must have foundations in some kind of belief system. eg..you may believe there is no scientific evidence which proves the exsitence, or need of God, while at the same time believing that science can possibly prove His existence, all the while knowing that it can't.

Perhaps this is explanation enough. Hmm.. like I said, I just don't see it that way, as the change of state must be motivated. For example, a person develops to a state x. At x, they are exposed to "G", which is clearly hypothetical according to their known state x. In order to move to x+G, something must be provided to move G to a state other than hypothetical. For instance, if G is gravy, I will move to x+G quickly if you put some gravy on my taters. If G is as you say "trancendental and immaterial", G remains hypothetical, as there's still nothing on my taters. Mind you, "god" ("G") exists now as a hypothetical... as a concept, but to believe it this "trancendental and immaterial" is a reality of the universe, would be for a reasonable person IMO, a tough row to hoe... as there is nothing in the "trancendental and immaterial" that can be demonstrated with taters.

Hence your belief would be irrational and illogical.

But as I've noted above, the belief system you mention already exists as x. If indeed it existed as you specified and you knowingly contradicted it, of course it would be irrational and illogical. Belief systems themselves however, are often kept that way throughout the entire life cycle of the individual.

Apology accepted.

Thank you.

You are indeed correct, in that I have claimed my belief in God, and that i do think God exists, and i have always stood by that claim. But I have never claimed that He exists as in, God does exist. There is a difference.

But to you, god exists. It seems that you're drawing random lines. To you, god exists objectively, yes or no? You don't have to insist that I believe that to hold the belief. You do however, know it to be true right? Or is it hope?

If there is a way to prove to you that I believe God exists, please mention it.

You've done that already. I believe you that you believe.

On a personal note, I don't know why you have to resort to that, I think you have enough about you to just present good, sound arguments and rebuttals.

I appreciate that and understand, but there a number of reasons I can come up with to explain why I do it. Some have advantages, some not. Ultimately I just do what I do. I say what comes to mind. If I try to plan it all out it becomes synthetic and meaningless. Emotion is the spice of life damnit. I will not argue like a machine. If we're adults, we can overcome any emotional conflicts that stem from our interaction. I feel at this point that's been done given your acceptance of my apology. I'm glad about that. Thanks again.

The thing is when someone steps up to challenge your points, one can expect at some time your emotional behaviour. So I would say it negitively affects the whole conversation. But that's only my point of view, you must do as you see fit.

I understand that it must seem that way sometimes. It does even to me, but I'm not going to pretend I don't have to shit to live. I don't shove the fact in anyone's face intentionally, but sometimes I get caught with my pants down, grunting anyway. Such is living.

This is my point. Everything is supported by belief of some sort or another, so to not believe in God is to have a belief in something that does not support the belief in God. When all is said and done either we believe God exists or not, period. There can be no other option.

When? Isn't mind more dynamic than that? Can't we change? Don't we sometimes believe this, and sometimes that depending on our overall perspective at the time?

This is why I'm here, I want my points to be diced up. How else can we learn?
And where's the fun in making an argument and not wanting anyone to argue with you?

Good then.

You're most probably right, although it is hard to accept such criticism. But as you say, in my defence, it is a two way street. If I have caused any offence to you in the past, please accept my apologies.

I don't need your apology. I accept responsibility for having taken offence. I do however, accept the apparent good will in which you give it as a positive development, and accept your apology since it was offered. I'll do my best to abandon any animosity I may have held for my idea of you.

PS: Jan have you perused this thread at all: The taoist trap?

You might find it entertaining.

 

[Russ723]

you must have first have a belief, for you to then have a disbelief. gods or non-existent.

No

You don't have to have a Belief.

What you are getting at is that you must acknowledge the concept of a god in order to have something to reject.

I acknowledge the concept of Vampires: blood sucking, can be killed by sunlight, cannot cross water etc...

I reject that concept.

 

[wesmorris]

how so,if a person has never had a belief, how is he ignorant,

if a person has never been exposed to G, then they are ignorant of it and lack belief.

 

[Cris]

Valich,

Regarding the terminology. If I just bluntly come out and say, "God does not exist," I don't think there is any other word to use except to say I am an atheist?

Yup I entirely agree. Just be aware that most atheists don't say that because it is difficult to justify, especially when the main argument against theists is that they certainly can't justify their assertions.

 

[valich]

I definitely acknowledge the concept of God but it is now my firm "belief" that God does not exist. This is a belief. In no way is it a form of ignorance. To believe in God has no purpose to me. It answers no questions that I have. The concept has contradicting aspects. It contradicts other beliefs that I have that explain life to me in a much more reasonable, rational, clearer, and justifiable way - a way that other people can also see in the same way. You can't do that with a belief in God. A belief in God can only be accepted by faith, and every person then has a different degree or type of faith and therefore a different type of concept of God. Then its not clear what God is. Life is more clearer to me without complicating it with this confusing concept that fits no where into my belief system. There is no place in my belief system for a belief in God.

 

[Prince_James]

Sarkus:

First Part: That Bananas are Superior to Apples

1. All which is not a Banana is necessarily false.
2. Falsehood is inferior to truth and is its opposite.
3. If falsehood is the opposite of truth, then all which is true is a Banana.
4. Owing from falsehood's inferiority, truth is superior, and therefore Bananas are superior to Apples.

The first part of the argument is manifestly unsubstantiated. All which is false, however, does not exist. Is that not how we determine something's truth value? For instance, if my friend Daryl and I went walking together this afternoon, then later that day (whilst I was not there), Daryl told our mutual friend Trevor that he and I never walked that day, the untruth of his statement is determined by the fact that what he affirmed did not exist.

The problem goes further with this Fourth Part.
If God truly is a being with ALL PERFECTIONS and has no INTERNAL CONSISTENCIES....

I did not quantify any other perfection, hence why I said "I could go further, but this is where we can stop off for now".

Sarkus:

Atheism does reject the notion of God.

Then if it does not reject the notion of God, how can it be the belief if no Gods?

It can do it either with a belief that God does not exist (although there is no evidence), or it can do it with merely nothing more than by not having the belief that god exists.

To have a belief that something does not exist, is to actively affirm that such a thing does not exist.

It is not a case of either having a belief that God exists or having a belief that God does not exist.
The (weak) atheist option is that there is no belief in either.
Usually this is due to Agnosticism with respect to God - i.e. lack of evidence either way.

But you can get Agnostic Theists and non-Agnostic Atheists.

Weak Atheism is Agnostic, you are right. Agnostic Theists, however, cannot exist. One cannot be unsure if the answer could be noted any way, and philosophically validly affirm that God exists (theism).

Wesmorris:

You're such an obnoxious, snippy bitch. Wait maybe that's me. Either way, as is par for your course - your argument is crap.

Leave out the ad hominem, Wes. Specifically the crude ad hominem.

everneo:

What about something that existed once but does not exist now?
Get rid of all good things out of existence and they become false?

That which once existed but no longer exists, is false to say exists now.

Cris:

We usually take atheism to mean absence of belief, while only some atheists will assert non existence. Certainly Descartes and Anselm take the hard approach that you want to use as part their Ontological variations.

As I am trying to inject some philosophy into some Atheists here, and I do assert soft-atheism is utter crap philosophically, then yes, this is true.

I haven't followed your reference yet, but I have my own at home that I studied quite some time ago - I'll have to revise I guess. It is curious that it hasn't come up here before, at least not as far as I can remember. From what I do recall it was gibberish since it relied on a concept being true simply because it could be imagined, or something similar.

But really you'll need to distinguish between the weak and strong versions of atheism. And atheistic agnosticsm is simply atheism.

You're right, I ought to, although as I just noted, I think I'll also include some refutations of soft-atheism as nonsense.

Cris:

I think that is impossible since at the route of any logical deduction the base premises must rest on empirical data. I.e. at some point logic must reference reality to reach a real conclusion.

Here's an example: We know that a square which is a circle is impossible and we could never empricially validate this claim. In fact, all impossibilities which we know to be impossible, are only able to be demonstrated such logically. And in terms of positive affirmation, we know that infinity must exist, precisely because it is logically necessary.

valich:

I definitely acknowledge the concept of God but it is now my firm "belief" that God does not exist. This is a belief. In no way is it a form of ignorance. To believe in God has no purpose to me. It answers no questions that I have. The concept has contradicting aspects. It contradicts other beliefs that I have that explain life to me in a much more reasonable, rational, clearer, and justifiable way - a way that other people can also see in the same way. You can't do that with a belief in God. A belief in God can only be accepted by faith, and every person then has a different degree or type of faith and therefore a different type of concept of God. Then its not clear what God is. Life is more clearer to me without complicating it with this confusing concept that fits no where into my belief system. There is no place in my belief system for a belief in God.

So you have belief just as they have belief in God?

 

[valich]

Yes, absolutely, I have a belief just as others believe in God. What's your point? And please make it short without these long pasted quotes. Sorry but I just don't have the time.

 

[wesmorris]

"Leave out the ad hominem, Wes. Specifically the crude ad hominem."

Mind your business jack.

 

[Prince_James]

Valich:

Then you're basically just religious in disguise. That's fine, in and of itself, but it is just as philosophically unsound.

Wes:

No.

 

[Sarkus]

Weak Atheism is Agnostic, you are right. Agnostic Theists, however, cannot exist. One cannot be unsure if the answer could be noted any way, and philosophically validly affirm that God exists (theism).

Weak atheism is NOT Agnosticism.
Agnosticism (and its opposite - gnosticism) is soley to do with knowledge:
"Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the truth values of certain claims—particularly theological claims regarding the existence of God, gods, or deities—are unknown, inherently unknowable, or incoherent, and therefore, (some agnostics may go as far to say) irrelevant to life."

Atheism (and its opposite - theism) is soley to do with a belief (or lack of) in a god.

Weak atheists tend to also be agnostic - as it is agnosticism (with respect to God) that often leads to the atheistic position. But they are not the same thing.

Agnostic theists DO exist (albeit that it is not a common position).
Agnostic theism is the philosophy that encompasses both theism and agnosticism. An agnostic theist is one who disavows knowledge of God's existence but chooses to believe in God in spite of this.

For example, if you follow Pascal's wager as the only reason to believe - i.e. that the benefits of believing outweigh the benefits from not believing - then you are an agnostic theist.
A simple case of "I have no knowledge of whether he exists or not - but I believe anyway".