I would recommend not using faith interchangeably with trust, judgment, assumption, habit, etc. It's like the use of "energy". The multiple meanings carry much different implications, and it's easy to get confused. Faith in God and faith in the existence of the next stairstep are not the same thing at all. You end up saying absurd things like this: which begs the question of what difference God makes in the matter, or this: Just to make the most obvious point, you can in fact test for yourself whether a particular bacterium causes ulcers. It would be a lot of trouble, and many practical difficulties would have to be met, but there is nothing in principle or in fact that denies you. And that is an essential difference, among many others. You have no other way of assessing views besides ascribing spurious motives to the holding of them ? No wonder you seem to think this makes sense: Other people have adopted a "science centered view of life" without doing any such thing. An assessment of their views that avoids assigning them various (apparently introspectively derived ?)psychological traits and attributes might prove worthwhile.
In roundabout: yes. But I've seen how the discussion with Frud11 went on the problem of observation and how we cannot observe anything without perturbing it, you took part there. I think this is where our ways part, and I don't think we'll see eye to eye on this. So it's pointless for me to continue.
I think they are, just that they are at different points in the same spectrum. But I think you don't see it that way. Causing harm to myself that way would be unethical. And besides, this would be just one test (that might cost me my life!). And where are the hundreds and hundreds of other tests ... No, I'm not ascribing 'spurious motives' to them. I'm saying what I predict or know it would take me to arrive where they are. I'm saying that all I have is my own experience, my own assessments. Not some 'common ground' in the form of 'objectivity' or 'reason'. It seems it would be useful if such a 'common ground' existed, and indeed, we presume it exists when we communicate - otherwise communication seems to be impossible. Yet in the end, it all comes down to one's own experiences, one's own assessments. Does everyone have a comparable start and course in life? No. Many people might have arrived at a particular view, but what it took them to arrive at it is likely to differ from one person to another. For example, someone born into a fundamentalist theist family, being raised a theist, but ending up with a science-centred view of life, has most likely taken a different path to arrive at this science-centred view of life than a person born into a family where the parents already held a science-centred view of life. Don't you think? Even if two parties are both at point C, if their respective starting points were A and B, they obviously had to take different paths to arrive at C. It took them different psychological traits and attributes, different resources, different times, different connections and whatever else there might be at play. When comparing two views or proposing that one view is superior to another, I think we do need to take into consideration how a particular person has arrived at it or might arrive at it. In the end, to be true to this consideration, I think it all becomes specific and personal, and generalizations are difficult to make. - Hence it is also difficult to adequately correct others or give them instructions.
Yes it does have other expectations: atheism is a hypothesis, all such things have a set of (> one) expectations to observe. Atheism is a philosophy based on the science (rational, empirical) vs dogmatic thought, or somesuch. Believing atheism is the only rational hypothesis, and no other, is one tenet. You believe that it's important to have a "non-belief", in something you understand as "God". I can't be sure, though, about this--no-one can (? you know there isn't any evidence, so why bother trying to prove or disprove it...? You've just defined it into unicorn and fish on a motorbike territory) It appears to be yours...?
Unfortunately (a)theism is a digital position - if you are not theist you are atheist - if you are not atheist you are theist. It is really as simple as that. You can not be beyond both - you are one or the other, whether you like to see it or not. Can you be beyond both a "house owner" and "non-house-owner"? Can you be beyond both a "man" and "woman"? No - because in such cases you are one or the other - there is no alternative. You, and others it appears, seem to ascribe to atheism an entire philosophy that just doesn't need to be there. Someone who merely lacks a belief in God can be anything else, and hold any philosophy they choose - subject to not believing in God. What you are arguing against seems to be a very defined and restrcitive view of what you think atheism is - but by doing so you merely put yourself in another area of the wide expanse of atheism - which is anywhere other than the "I believe in God" camp.
No - it has one - "I do not have a belief in God". End of story. Anything beyond that is not atheism but due to a separate philosophy that one might hold. This is one realm of atheism - sure. But atheism is merely a lack of belief in God, regardless of how that lack exists. Any philosophy one adds on top of that is NOT "Atheism" but a separate philosophical viewpoint that just happens to entail a non-belief in God. Many do. So to restrict atheism to just one philosophy is disingenuous, not to say incorrect.
Irrationality and stubborness are in the province of those who believe in god. I have never met a believer who could debate the question of god's putative existence using logic. Perhaps you can do so. You might like to start by stating what you mean by god.
That means, all she wrote, where I come from. What's this? There's more? Regardless? That doesn't sound very scientific or empirical? A "separate" POV? "Just happens to entail"? "To restrict atheism", you mean something like claiming that: "it has one [tenet]- "I do not have a belief in God". End of story."? You restrict it with this statement, or try to. P.S. Saying: "I don't believe in God (as some almighty, omniscient being or person, with a white beard and a big book, or as a trinity, or some agency that directs my life) because I'm a scientist who thinks rationally, and only believes things that I see with my own eyes, and God can't exist because of A, B, and C". Is constructing a belief. You can't define something away by invoking the notion of its opposite. If there is no pink unicorn, then there is not not a pink unicorn. You conceive of a thing if you conceive its non-existence.
Eh? Was this a response? Of course - atheism is merely a belief / lack-of belief position held within one's larger philosophical views. To say that atheism IS the philosophy is absurdism. Many philosophies are atheistic - solispsism, nihilism, reductionism, empiricism - and many have beliefs within them that are just as tenable (or not) as theistic beliefs. Why does it need to in order to be atheist? Why does one need to be empirical or scientific to be an atheist? One merely needs to discount god (i.e. lack of belief in) Not at all. You are trying to restrict atheism by trying to define what it IS - i.e. take the set of everything and chuck out everything that does not fit with your idea of what atheism IS. I am merely stating what atheism IS NOT. It can be ANYTHING ELSE. The problem is that YOUR idea, your definition, chucks out a vast array of atheists. You are thus restricting by trying to claim more about it than it actually is. This is true of those who have the belief that God does not exist. But there are those who merely choose not to have the belief that god exists - and many can reach that lack of belief (although "reach" implies action where none is actually needed if one begins life as atheist) through any number of reasons, causes etc - not merely for what you seem to appear to think as the only reason: science, empiricism etc.
Yes - even then. They may not be able to support their position in an argument against someone else, but it does not alter their position at the time as being atheist. You ask them if they have a belief in god's existence.... if they say no (for what ever reason) they are atheist.
You are correct. I do not see it that way. And one reason I do not see it that way is illustrated here: ? You yourself would perform the hundreds and hundreds of other tests - you seem to have a strange idea of what these scientists you claim must be taken on faith are doing, in their labs. As with the stairs, your "faith" need not be founded blindly or on secondhand information - you can, in fact and in principle, check the matter out for yourself. This is a much different situation from "faith" in a deity. It is not on the same spectrum. It has significantly different properties. That method of ascribing motives is famous for ascribing spurious motives - beginning with error in assessing "where they are" by "where I would be". So reason and attempts at objectivity form no part of your ascription of motive, and you regard introspection as devoid of assumptions of "common ground". Are you sure about all this ? It seems a bit daft, offhand. Not necessarily. That fails in a couple of ways: The square circle comes to mind - or doesn't, actually. There are people who think Gods are like square circles - impossible by definition. Another failure is in overlooking the multiplicity of reference - one who does not believe in any God has failed to believe in a great many of them, all different: have they then (must they have) conceived of each of these Gods ? Including the ones they don't even know about ?
So it's a problem, this atheism thing? You say I'm restricting it by "trying to claim" something: that there's "more to it" than there actually is? When did I do this, can you ghost something that shows I've "defined" atheism (even here in this thread)? And you appear to refute my conjecture that saying: "Atheism is the non-belief of anything to do with belief in God", by claiming that "God" is inconsequential--i.e. in the same category as Jabberwocks, or rabbits playing croquet? Although I've claimed that this claim is actually because of the notion of God as a consequential being, that you apply the opposite notion: you're simply trying to "define it away". Sounds like most other belief systems. So there are several atheistic philosophies, not just one? There's "more to it", than the belief that God is non-existent, or can be defined as inconsequential or without meaning--by using the notions of philosophical meaning, and constructing atheist systems of belief: solipsism, solecism, nihilism, reductionism, empiricism, relativism, informationalism, and by using the opposite notion of a consequential agency? And your particular version is which one, or is it none of the ones you've listed? i.e. what particular atheist belief system do you claim to adhere to? You seem to be saying there's more to this atheism than the definition I've given (except I don't think I have given one), and that I'm saying atheism is THE philosophy, say what?
You can't conceive something impossible (like what's North of the North Pole, say), so saying you can't conceive of a square circle, doesn't disprove what I said. You can't think about a not-square circle either. One who "does not believe" something, must believe something else (often, it's the opposite thing). If you don't know about something, it isn't believable or not believable. If you can conceive of unknown things, you are conceiving of them.
Far from it. Merely your restrictive notion of it. Sure: Atheism is a philosophy based on the science (rational, empirical) vs dogmatic thought, or somesuch. Believing atheism is the only rational hypothesis, and no other, is one tenet. post 425 Not at all - please detail where I have said any such thing. To be honest - rabbits playing croquet would be extremely consequential to our understanding of intelligence (e.g. why, out of all the sports that rabbits could play, would they choose croquet! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) Are you confusing me with someone else? Atheism is only part of a belief system when one is claiming belief in non-existence of God. Otherwise please explain how a "lack of belief" is either in itself, or part of, a belief system? Of course. And what of those who don't believe in the existence of god as anything more than an idea... this is certainly not "without meaning" or "inconsequential" but can not be said to "exist" outside the realm of idea. I don't claim to adhere to any. I'm actually saying there is less to atheism than you've credited it, and I'm disagreeing that atheism is a philosophy - as I can not see how a mere lack of belief in something can be credited with the title of "philosophy". So lack of belief in the existence of the Jabberwocky is a philosophy? The same causes that give rise to one's atheistic position might give rise to the rest of an overriding philosophy - but there are many reasons why one becomes atheist - and many philosophies that include atheism as a result of their thought-process. But atheism per se is nothing more or less than the lack of belief in the actual existence of one particular idea (i.e. existence beyond merely the idea). Atheism does NOT make claim as to how the position was reached. THAT is where one's philosophy might come in. If I saw someone on top of a mountain - can it be claimed with certainty their route up the mountain, or even if they climbed it at all and not dropped off by helicopter or parachuted onto it?
Lack of belief implies ignorance. Belief is something that comes from experience. Atheists claim that God is non-existent because they've never seen or experienced anything they might classify as "God", or something 'beyond ideas"? "Atheism is a philosophy based on the [principle of] science (rational, empirical) vs dogmatic thought, or somesuch. Believing [that] atheism is the only rational hypothesis, and no other, is one tenet." I posted that in response to: Your response to my claim that atheism is a philosophy with many expectations. My "definition" is pretty skeletal, or general. I don't think I'm trying to offer a complete, or a full, or restricted description. But atheism certainly is something people believe in (a worldview). Even if they claim to not believe in anything, or anything to do with the existence of the above "unknowable" thing. There is such a thing as an experience beyond "knowing", in terms of knowing being logic and rationality: i.e. an irrational non-logical experience, that doesn't commute with our intellect--i.e. God. But you have no way of knowing if I'm being truthful here, and I can't really describe what I'm inferring, not with ordinary old words, anyway. That's the catch-22. Scriptures, etc, have a go at it, but that's all just the idea of it, scriptures aren't "The Truth" at all, they're a lot of words--interesting words, maybe, and maybe some help. Buddha said something like: "You don't have to listen to me, or believe a word I say. What you have to do is see it yourself". A group of people claiming "there is no such thing", is irrelevant, if I know, and others, that there is.
No - atheism is merely the non-belief in the existence of god. Some go as far to claim god is non-existent. I don't. Many don't. How can I know if God exists or not - especially if this God is claimed by many as being transcendental and beyond evidencing? I personally have no other cause to believe in God's existence - but I don't go as far as saying that I believe God does not exist - as I have no cause to. This is all atheism is... "lack of belief in the existence of god"... NOT "belief in the non-existence". How on earth do you state with anything more than mere confidence that an atheist who claims to have "non-belief" is in fact "believing in non-"? So you're telling me, as a fact, that I actually believe that god does not exist? Please explain how you have reached this conclusion, and that all atheists are actually "strong-atheist" - but clearly don't actually realise this. Agreed - but it surely raises the question of HOW you know it - what causes you to know it, and why others can not seem to know it when you claim it as fact - i.e. questioning the underlying assumptions that have led you to consider it a fact. One man's "I've seen a ghost" is another man's "I've seen an as yet unexplained light".
That depends on why those people claim "there is no such thing". One can "know" and simply be wrong - it happens all the time. I don't believe in omnipotent beings or square circles, for the same reason. Now that doesn't cover all the Gods that can be proposed, but it covers some of them. If someone claims to know that there is an omnipotent being, or a square circle - they've had personal experience with one - am I obliged to take the claim seriously ?
It's really not that complicated. A·theist literally means not·theist. Look up theist in your dictionary. Everyone that is not a theist is by definition atheist. Anyone that does not believe in a God or Gods is atheist. They do not have to have an affirmative disbelief in a god or gods, only a lack of belief. They are simply not·theist, literally! C1ay There are only 10 kinds of people in the world -- .....Those who understand binary, and those who don't.
You have mentioned something you call "non-belief" several times. There is no such thing, as a belief that isn't a belief. It's a non-sequitur, or non-comitant. You can't associate a "non-idea", because it's an idea. To "have" a non-belief, is of course, having a belief. Assignation of meaning (even to something you believe has none), is belief. P.S. You can believe this, or choose not to. This would then be the formation of a belief about what you think (or believe) I'm saying...
