atheism is a belief system

Originally posted by rwingett
Exactly. Strong atheism is like playing whack-a-mole. You can't account for every definition of 'god.' If you think you've disproved one definition of god, it just pops up somewhere else in a slightly different guise. It's a fool's errand. The only purpose it ultimately serves is to let theists off the hook from having to shoulder the entire burden of proof themselves.

I disagree... (what a surprise ;-p )

Science is the study of the nature of reality.
It's (never ending) quest to build more and more accurate models of reality
that allow us to understand, predict, and master it.

Now there are, a priori, a potentially infinite number of possible realities and
it would be both foolish and impossible to try to disprove all of them.

So what science does is not think of every potentially possible way reality works
and then individually disprove it. But instead determines the way the world does
work and thus rules out EVERYTHING else.

For example, the best estimate we have for the age of the visible universe is
13.798 ± 0.037 billion years. (68% limits, 1 Standard Deviation)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

Now we can be pretty confident about that number, but there is still a 32% chance
that the true answer lies outside that range.

However if you increase the ± error range to 100 million years you go above 99% chance
that the true answer lies inside that range.

As nothing about the reality we inhabit can be known with absolute certainty, knowledge
about that reality simply becomes that we are sure about above some arbitrary high level
of certainty.

Once you widen your range of possible answers so that the probability the true answer
lies inside that range is higher than your chosen level of certainty required for knowledge
then you can then justifiably make the claim that you know the answer lies inside that
range and need no longer seriously consider options that lie outside of that range.


For the question as to whether or not gods/afterlives/the supernatural exists, you simply need
to see whether our scientific understanding of the universe allows for the existence of those
things within the bounded error margins of our knowledge.

And the answer is that within the error range of what we currently know about reality there is
no room for gods or afterlives or the supernatural. (barring in mind I am placing some limits
on the definition of god... for example if you are going to claim that the universe IS god without
claiming it has any supernatural powers or a mind then all you have done is replace the word
universe with god... which is just semantics. Also I don't accept sufficiently advanced aliens as
being deities either... However all supernatural deities, as believed in by the worlds major
religions, are included.)

Originally posted by apathist
There are those who believe that atheism is best defined as a lack of belief in gods. Well, babies and rocks don't believe in gods.

By using dictionaries and encyclopedias, it turns out that atheism requires belief.

I'm pretty sure than must be correct, unless you have scientific evidence that gods cannot exist? :/

You really can't let this go can you.

There are three positions of belief (as opposed to knowledge) with regards to the existence of gods.

1. You can believe that gods exist.

2. You can have an absence of belief as to whether gods exist or not.

3. You can believe that gods don't exist.

Position 1 is theism, the belief that gods exist.

YOU are claiming that only position 3 is atheism... which leaves position 2 unlabelled.

Now position 2 is not agnosticism... because that's a position on knowledge not belief.

So either you invent a new word for people who don't have any belief about the existence of gods,
or you accept that atheism (which is simply anything that is not-theism) includes options 2 and 3.

Given that many many people who call themselves atheists hold position 2 and not 3, the latter
option seems vastly more sensible and reasonable.



EDIT: Oh, and as I pointed out in the last post... We DO have scientific evidence that gods don't exist.

All that evidence that the world works naturally and not supernaturally is evidence that gods don't exist.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I disagree... (what a surprise ;-p )

Science is the study of the nature of reality.
It's (never ending) quest to build more and more accurate models of reality
that allow us to understand, predict, and master it.

Now there are, a priori, a potentially infinite number of possible realities and
it would be both foolish and impossible to try to d ...[text shortened]... r all supernatural deities, as believed in by the worlds major
religions, are included.)[/i]

However accurate your scientific model becomes, you'll never be able to prove that god isn't the moving hand behind it. As long as your knowledge of the universe remains limited, there will always be room to shoehorn a god or two into it somewhere. The best that can be said is that we have no need of that hypothesis (god) and leave it at that. Anything more and you're setting yourself up for a Sisyphean task. Plus you're just feeding the frenzied antics of theists who desperately want to demonstrate that atheism is a belief.

Originally posted by googlefudge
for example if you are going to claim that the universe IS god without
claiming it has any supernatural powers or a mind then all you have done is replace the word
universe with god... which is just semantics.

This is the position I used to take. But it occurs to me that the difference is not in universe itself, but in the attitude of the observer in relation to the universe. The universe of the scientist and the pantheist* are exactly the same in every regard. To the former, the universe is an object to study, exploit and "master", as you put it. To the latter the universe is an object of deep reverence that is worthy of worship. Pantheism attaches a moral imperative to ecological concerns that science cannot.

*Most pantheists, anyway. There are some who ascribe a little bit more to the universe as god than to the plain, old universe.

Originally posted by rwingett
However accurate your scientific model becomes, you'll never be able to prove that god isn't the moving hand behind it. As long as your knowledge of the universe remains limited, there will always be room to shoehorn a god or two into it somewhere. The best that can be said is that we have no need of that hypothesis (god) and leave it at that. Anything more ...[text shortened]... the frenzied antics of theists who desperately want to demonstrate that atheism is a belief.

When you say prove, do you mean with absolute 100% certainty?

Because that is obviously impossible.

I can't prove that gods don't exist with 100% certainty.

I also can't prove that the earth is not a flat disk resting on the back of
four elephants themselves standing on the back of a giant star turtle with
absolute 100% certainty.


However it would be pretty stupid to believe that we live on Discworld.


All knowledge of the world is probabilistic.

And thus I don't have to prove with absolute 100% certainty that gods don't
exist.

Set a boundary for knowledge claims of 1-e for small enough e and you're sorted.

Claims of the existence of gods don't get special treatment.



My standard is beyond any and all reasonable doubt.

If you go beyond that then you are being unreasonable, and I can argue against that.



If you can comfortably accept that we know the world is an irregular oblate spheroid then
why can't you similarly accept that we know gods (as classically defined) don't exist?



Also, why should I let irrational crazy religious people dictate my position?

I hold my position because that is what the evidence and reason suggest it should be...
Not because it's a convenient position to argue for against crazy Christian fundies.

Originally posted by googlefudge
When you say prove, do you mean with absolute 100% certainty?

Because that is obviously impossible.

I can't prove that gods don't exist with 100% certainty.

I also can't prove that the earth is not a flat disk resting on the back of
four elephants themselves standing on the back of a giant star turtle with
absolute 100% certainty.


Howev ...[text shortened]...
Not because it's a convenient position to argue for against crazy Christian fundies.

Arguing against gods "as classically defined" doesn't really get you very far. Those theists are a cagey bunch. They'll just start redefining their god in non-classical terms. If you want to tire yourself out, then I guess I can't stop you. But it really isn't necessary.

Originally posted by rwingett
This is the position I used to take. But it occurs to me that the difference is not in universe itself, but in the attitude of the observer in relation to the universe. The universe of the scientist and the pantheist* are exactly the same in every regard. To the former, the universe is an object to study, exploit and "master", as you put it. To the latter t ...[text shortened]... are some who ascribe a little bit more to the universe as god than to the plain, old universe.

Well I completely and utterly disagree that science cannot (or doesn't) give a moral
imperative for protecting the environment... However that's irrelevant to the discussion
at hand so...


How people feel about something doesn't change the nature of the thing, just how people
feel about it.

My point was that when talking about the existence of gods I am limiting my discussion
to claims of the existence of gods that are not indistinguishable from everyday items.

Otherwise you simply get bogged down in an unending series of caveats and can't make
any clear points.

If you worship the sun as a god but don't give it any special powers then it's obviously
not one of the things I claim don't exist when I say that gods don't exist.

This is not any kind of problem with the vast majority of theists because they believe
in supernatural anthropomorphic deities of some sort.

And I can deal with the edge cases if and when they arise.

Originally posted by rwingett
Arguing against gods "as classically defined" doesn't really get you very far. Those theists are a cagey bunch. They'll just start redefining their god in non-classical terms. If you want to tire yourself out, then I guess I can't stop you. But it really isn't necessary.

Well unless they redefine their god to be a sufficiently advanced alien or to be
indistinguishable from everyday reality (which they generally can't do) then I'm
sorted.


And you will notice that I argue for plain atheism more often than my strong
atheism. My response to the claim "my god exists" is generally "prove it" rather
than going into the long process of proving them wrong.

the fact that I am a strong atheist does not prevent me arguing for the universal
atheist position of simple non-belief.
As that is indeed the easier argument to grasp.

However it would be dishonest to claim that that is the position I actually hold.

Originally posted by Great King Rat
I think I see the problem.

Question: when an atheist - any self-proclaimed atheist - says he is an atheist, and elaborates by stating he has no belief in the existence of any kind of god, sees no evidence of godlike interference in anything and feels nothing that could be described as a "supernatural" presence, do you think that what we're r ...[text shortened]... , I am being redundant.

No problem, my whole existence is one big bowl of redundancy.[/b]

I believe God has made Himself known to us all, and all of will be without
an excuse before God, but why people reject God is more than likely
different as what turned others around to God. That will be a discussion
between all the Atheist and God, not between me and them. I'm compelled
to share about God so that they may turn towards God least they die in
their sins without ever hearing they need not.
Kelly

Originally posted by rwingett
There are no babies who are capable of conceptualizing a god.

Prove it.
Kelly

Originally posted by apathist
There are those who believe that atheism is best defined as a lack of belief in gods. Well, babies and rocks don't believe in gods.

By using dictionaries and encyclopedias, it turns out that atheism requires belief.

I'm pretty sure than must be correct, unless you have scientific evidence that gods cannot exist? :/

There are those who believe that atheism is best defined as a lack of belief in gods. Well, babies and rocks don't believe in gods.

Rocks are not cognizers. So, would it satisfy you that one makes it explicit that the term atheism is predicated unto cognizers? One would have thought that would already have been clear enough anwyay. So, there is no threat here that atheism is predicated unto rocks and whatnot. Babies could still be viewed as atheists in some non-explicit form since babies are at least rudimentary cognizers, but so what?

By using dictionaries and encyclopedias, it turns out that atheism requires belief.

I do not agree. Vistesd has already supplied an example of a dictionary entry that is split on this issue. I'll provide below an example of an internet encyclopedia entry that seems contradictory on the matter. Consider for example the 'Atheism' entry in the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy at http://www.iep.utm.edu/atheism/. What is the very first line of this entry? It says "The term “atheist” describes a person who does not believe that God or a divine being exists." Does that imply that atheism requires belief? No, actually, it implies just the opposite, that it is sufficient for a cognizer to be an atheist if this cognizer happens to lack a certain belief. (Note also that this characterization explicitly avoids your silly "a rock should not be viewed as an atheist" objection because it makes it clear that 'atheist' is predicated unto persons.) Ok, now, what is the very first line of the subsequent sub-section entitled "What is Atheism?" It says "Atheism is the view that there is no God." Does this imply that atheism requires belief? Yes, it seems so. So, hiliariously, this encyclopedia entry reads as contradictory on the matter you bring up (the matter of whether or not atheism requires belief).

I think you'll find that this issue is not as black and white as you suggest. From my perspective, a good overview essay of the topic will include discussion about different taxonomies of atheists, as they may be characterized in theory as well as used in practice, since the term does not seem to have a clear default understanding within the literature or within the populace at large. I tend to think that 'atheism' in its broadest sense just refers to not-theism; but discussions can of course be clarified as needed to more particular or specific understanding of the terms. On the other hand, your treatment of the topic seems particularly bad. In summary, your treatment boils down to "Atheism obviously means [enter content here]. Don't believe me? Just go check some dictionaries and encyclopedias."

Originally posted by LemonJello

There are those who believe that atheism is best defined as a lack of belief in gods. Well, babies and rocks don't believe in gods.

Rocks are not cognizers. So, would it satisfy you that one makes it explicit that the term atheism is predicated unto cognizers? One would have thought that would already have been clear enough anwyay. So ...[text shortened]... re]. Don't believe me? Just go check some dictionaries and encyclopedias."

The fact that Atheism paints the universe without God, or gods is the
system. The debate about faith resides here, is there a cause of God or
no, was there a plan purpose and design to our universe or no, does life
have meaning beyond my own thinking and desires or no. The system we
setup as we view all things requires beliefs, because we do not know how
it began, or where it is going if anywhere, and so on.

It is meaningless to me that someone wants to attempt to avoid the word
belief when they speak of their foundational views, the foundation all they
build their beliefs on if exactly what they think the God question answers
is. Even if you want to say I don't have to think about God to look at the
universe, is no different than saying there isn't one to think about.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
It is meaningless to me that someone wants to attempt to avoid the word
belief when they speak of their foundational views, the foundation all they
build their beliefs on if exactly what they think the God question answers
is.

The error you are making is you are assuming God plays a role in the beliefs of atheists. He doesn't. At least not necessarily. Your argument that a lack of belief in God contrasts strongly with belief in God and thus significantly affects a persons foundational views, only holds water if the default foundational view is a belief in God (which I know is what you believe, but you are wrong).
If belief in God is not the default foundational view, then your argument should work equally well for a lack of belief in Santa. It seems you don't think belief in Santa would have far reaching consequences, I can't think why, but lets take another example: Many people believe (or claim to) in there being aliens actively visiting our planet and abducting people etc. Clearly such a belief should have a dramatic impact on your foundational view. So if your argument holds water, your lack of such a belief is affecting your foundational view so significantly that we should call your lack of belief in aliens a 'belief system' and call you an aalien, and whenever we talk of your foundational views we should mention that you lack belief in aliens is a significant factor in your world view and affects your behaviour when going out at night, and is probably the reason you don't wear a tinfoil hat.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Prove it.
Kelly

Which is the most parsimonious answer? That babies are capable of conceptualizing a god, or that you're an idiot? The answer, clearly, is the latter, although it doesn't "prove" anything.

Originally posted by KellyJay
The fact that Atheism paints the universe without God, or gods is the
system. The debate about faith resides here, is there a cause of God or
no, was there a plan purpose and design to our universe or no, does life
have meaning beyond my own thinking and desires or no. The system we
setup as we view all things requires beliefs, because we do not know ho d to look at the
universe, is no different than saying there isn't one to think about.
Kelly

The question of whether or not some 'God' exists is simply a descriptive inquiry into the world. Either there is some actual referent of that term, or not. Either the term picks out something acutal, or not. The question has no more "meaning" to me than that. You have some definition for the term 'God'. Now the question is simply whether or not it is a descriptive fact that the term has a referent.

What you're doing here is extraordinarily sloppy, KJ. Basically, you infer a bunch of stuff (related to plans, purposes, meaning etc) from the proposition that God exists. Let's call these implications i1, i2, etc. Then, you're claiming that someone who doesn't believe the proposition God exists (or believes its negation) should then be committed to negation of the implications, not-i1, not-i2, etc. That's false. First of all, we probably have plenty of reason to doubt that i1, i2, etc actually follow in the first place from the proposition that God exists (that is, you could just be sloppily inferring a bunch of crap that doesn't actually follow; have you considered this possibility? ) Secondly, even if the i1, i2, etc do follow from the proposition that God exists, it doesn't follow that not-i1, not-i2, etc follow from the proposition that it is not the case that God exists. Here's an example. Suppose the proposition is that there exists some supernatural being who imbues human lives with meaning. You think this is true, and thus you also infer that your life has meaning. But suppose I don't think it is true. Does that mean that I am committed to the idea that human lives have no meaning? Of course not! I have all sorts of other options at introducing meaning. My atheism has nothing to do with my view on whether or not human lives have meaning. Lastly, how could it follow that one has all these commitments about meaning and whatnot simply from the fact that he lacks belief in some proposition? That's just absurd on the face of it.

It is meaningless to me that someone wants to attempt to avoid the word
belief when they speak of their foundational views, the foundation all they
build their beliefs on if exactly what they think the God question answers
is.

As I just pointed out above, you're confused here. The God question has little or nothing to do with my foundational views. The God question is simply a descriptively inquiry. Does the term 'God' as you Christians define it pick out something actual? Nope? Oh well.

Even if you want to say I don't have to think about God to look at the
universe, is no different than saying there isn't one to think about.
Kelly

I'm afraid you are confused here too. The two claims here are in fact different, since they have different proposition content and entail different things. In the former, the claim is that one has no need for the God hypothesis; that he sees no need to invoke God as an explanatory component for anything. The latter claims that God does not exist. Of course these claims are different.

I understand your argument. It goes like this:

(1) Not holding the belief that God exists is no different than holding the belief that God does not exist.
(2) Holding the belief that God does not exist informs all of one's foundational views.
(3) So, even not holding the belief that God exists informs all of one's foundational views.

Problem is, (1) is blatantly false and (2) is blatantly false as well. Not surprising then that (3) is also false.