The Confused Athiest

[Pete]

I'm not a believer in weak this or that; you either do not believe there is a God or you don't know. You can't both not believe there is a God and simultaneously not know.

No, Sam, it's not that simple. That argument seems to be common among theists - that's why I asked if you distinguish between faith and belief.

Greenberg's first reason to be atheist is too strong. Arguments for a proposition do not need to be unassailable (Personally, I think that anyone who thinks they have an unassailable argument is deluded), they need only be sufficient reason to believe in the proposition. Edit - Oops... I see iceaura has already made that point.

I imagine that you believe that there are no fairies at the bottom of the garden, and that you have good reason for that belief. Do you claim certain knowledge about that proposition?

They are rejecting the claims of theism; which is that there is a God.

Yes, that's correct. Atheism is rejecting certain claims, not rejecting God. You can't reject something that doesn't exist.

As to "what it's all about"... it's about seeking the truth. It's about critically examining all "truths" that are or have been presented to us, and having the courage to reject those that don't stand up to scrutiny. You should understand that mindset - you're a researcher, aren't you?

Sometimes I wickedly provoke them to see how stubbornly they are willing to cling to clearly meaningless details.

Careful, Sam, that's a two-edged sword. We all have foibles. Some of us are unwilling to accept that the meaning of words is flexible. Many of us are unwilling to let go of our stereotypes.

The reluctance to let go of stereotypes is particularly interesting. Perhaps its for fear that maybe the "bad guys" aren't actually all bad after all. But I think it's more likely that bigotry (in-group good, out-groups bad) is built into human nature. Almost like it was designed that way.

 

[Tnerb]

That's why they're theists...... hmmmm......

 

[USS Exeter]

IS there a god?
How I answer that question is: I don't know, but if there is, I do not want to put my blind trust or my time into worshipping it.

From the kind of person I am, I don't deny the existence of a god, yet I do not believe in a god.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Hey, its the standard definition. Atheism: doctrine or belief that there is no God.

That's a pretty horrible "standard" for adoption by a community of science scholars, regardless of how the word is tossed around outside the academy. This is better.

• Atheism: the theory that the natural universe is a closed system, unperturbed by unobservable supernatural forces and creatures acting in defiance of logic and/or natural laws. This is one of the underlying theories upon which science is based.
• Theory: an assertion derived by logical reasoning from empirical observation and accepted as "true beyond a reasonable doubt" after testing and peer review.

Laymen can "believe" that there are no gods for the same reasons they believe anything, including instinct, faith, authority, whim, ignorance or error. Scientists "accept" assertions because the scientific method has been applied to them and they have emerged from the process as "true beyond a reasonable doubt."

Scientists don't "believe" there are no gods. Scientists find no extraordinary evidence to support the extraordinary assertion that there are gods, and therefore have no reason to take it seriously, much less accept it. The existence of gods is an extraordinary assertion precisely because it contradicts five hundred years of consistent and powerful evidence that the natural universe is indeed a closed system.

Scientists who accept the existence of gods when they lock their laboratories and go home are merely manifesting the cognitive dissonance that all humans have: scientist in the daytime, layman at night. (After all, accountant in the daytime, out-of-balance checkbook at night is one of many equally common dualities.) But a scientist who allows his inner layman's fascination with the supernatural to affect his practice of science is not a good scientist, any more than the accountant who lets his company's ledgers fall into the same state of chaos as his MasterCard statement.

 

[Pete]

That's a pretty horrible "standard" for adoption by a community of science scholars, regardless of how the word is tossed around outside the academy.

Why?

Atheism: the theory that the natural universe is a closed system, unperturbed by unobservable supernatural forces and creatures acting in defiance of logic and/or natural laws.

Isn't that Naturalism?

I agree that the two correlate strongly, but that doesn't mean they're the same thing. I don't think there would be anything inherently contradictory about combining atheism with belief in psychic powers and ghosts, for example.

 

[Michael]

The OP is asking about beleif. While I don't believe Xenu exists I do believe the possibility of Xenu existing exists.

 

[spidergoat]

Would you agree, Fraggle, that if evidence of the supernatural was found, it would be incorporated into science? We only look for natural reasons because so far, that's all we know exists.

 

[Michael]

If evidence of the supernatural was found then it would become natural. Right?

 

[spidergoat]

Not necessarily. The supernatural by definition violates natural laws.

 

[Gustav]

bohr vs einstein?

 

[greenberg]

Arguments for a proposition do not need to be unassailable (Personally, I think that anyone who thinks they have an unassailable argument is deluded), they need only be sufficient reason to believe in the proposition.

Arguments for one's position need to be unassailable, otherwise one will always live in lesser or greater misery.

Uncertainty might have some temporary flair to it, "add some spice" to life, but per se, uncertainty is a stressful state.


And also, we must be clear about what "unassailable" means: Having an unassailable argument does not mean that nobody will ever attempt to assail it or consider it assailed from their perspective.
Having an unassailable argument means that in one's own mind and from what others charge against one's argument, one's argument is not assailed.
Surely, this can be interpreted as delusion, but Liberation has a few aspects in common with it, knowing one's argument to be unassailable is one of them (but note that all things have something in common with one another).

 

[Pete]

Arguments for one's position need to be unassailable, otherwise one will always live in lesser or greater misery.

I disagree with this assertion.

But even if it were correct, it doesn't reflect on the truth of whether an argument can be unassailable... Truth doesn't make allowances for human misery.

 

[iceaura]

Hey, its the standard definition.

Not around here. It doesn't cover me, and you have agreed that I sound like a standard atheist. It doesn't even cover Richard Dawkins, which would seem to be the minimum one could expect of the word.

Like I said, get yourself a decent dictionary. Or better yet, use the dictionary as a guide rather than a blinker, and argue the issues being argued, instead of trying to make them go away by definition.

We need a word for what "atheist" commonly means when used by the standard sorts of atheists to label themselves. "Atheist" is a very handy word for that set of meanings. There's nothing much wrong with it.

 

[greenberg]

Truth doesn't make allowances for human misery.

It should, if it is the truth.

 

[Pete]

Not around here. It doesn't cover me, and you have agreed that I sound like a standard atheist. It doesn't even cover Richard Dawkins, which would seem to be the minimum one could expect of the word.

When Dawkins says that he's agnostic about God to the same extent that he's agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden, don't you think that he's asserting a belief in the non-existence of God?

It seems to me that you're afraid to say "belief", because you think Sam will hear "faith".

Is it an act of Faith to say "I have good reason to believe that there are no fairies at the bottom of the garden"?

 

[iceaura]

When Dawkins says that he's agnostic about God to the same extent that he's agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden, don't you think that he's asserting a belief in the non-existence of God?

Not in SAM's sense. Mind your audience. "Yes, No, I don't know" are your choices for belief.

He goes with better judgment, not chosen belief, as far as I can tell.

 

[Pete]

Not in SAM's sense. Mind your audience. "Yes, No, I don't know" are your choices for belief.

But aren't you arguing that she should acknowledge a broader spectrum?

He goes with better judgment, not chosen belief, as far as I can tell.

It's still belief. "Belief", in the ordinary sense of the word, is not necessarily irrational, or faith-based, or certain. "Better judgment" falls within the spectrum of "belief".

There is good reason to believe that there are no fairies at the bottom of the garden - right?

 

[Gustav]

post # 7 has been ignored
why? bullshit?

 

[greenberg]

to characterize negative assertions as beliefs is ridiculous in this context
one could conjure up a nonsensical notion, slap an ism on it then simply cos i dont buy into the shit, i get labeled as an anti ism. a believer in the negation of whatever claim you would wanna come up with

sneaky and disingenuous

It is sneaky and disingenous only from an agnostic or a relativistic perspective.

But it is not sneaky and disingenous if we see SAM's OP from the perspective that theism is the one and only truly relevant explanation of the Universe and ourselves. And this is a stance she has taken.

If you wish, we can take up the debate on whether it is possible to discuss something without actually taking a stance, and how meaningful not taking a stance or communicating as if one doesn't have a stance would be.

 

[iceaura]

But it is not sneaky and disingenous if we see SAM's OP from the perspective that theism is the one and only truly relevant explanation of the Universe and ourselves.

So much for that perspective, then.

It's still belief. "Belief", in the ordinary sense of the word, is not necessarily irrational, or faith-based, or certain.

That's a battle I'm not going to fight, the various distinctions of belief, and the difference between supported and proven, certain and unceratin, in taht context. I'm going to go with Sam's meaning, around here.