Belief and Knowledge

[Whateverist]

Atheists simply don't believe in gods. That's it. No one is qualified to speak for all of us regarding anything else.

That's a cop out though isn't it? Have some balls and nail your colours to the mast. When it comes to the nitty gritty, I don't fall back on theism and say, well, the only thing you can hang me for is that I believe in a god or gods. I get into the detail of what I think. Atheism is a broad term with a simple meaning should we choose that definition. Let's not hide behind it so we can avoid any hard questions.

Cato's answer would be mine as well. There are no atheist colors to hang on the mast. I have opinions (and balls to back them up). I just don't have any opinions which flow from my non-belief in gods.

[fr0d0]

And mine too Whateverist given direction to follow that line. What's wrong with drawing conclusions based upon evidence? When it suits, people jump camp. Yes we know the majority doesn't represent the whole. No one is saying that they do.

[Lao Shizi]

http://www.slideshare.net/zainabyaqub/kn...lideshow=2

[Mudhammam]

What's wrong with drawing conclusions based upon evidence?

Since you're the one who believes in a super being that periodically stops by its little science fair project called life on earth to check in and see how its favorite pets are doing before they get transported home via the shuttle bus called brain death, why don't you tell us?

[Esquilax]

The other pair of problems here is this claim that you can't know anything unless you observe it, and the total lack of nuance concerning knowledge and belief.

For the former, Heywood said early on that abiogenesis is an irrational thing to believe in, as it has never been observed. But direct observation isn't the only method we have for discerning the truth about reality. For example, the orbital period of Pluto is longer than the span of time that we've actually known of Pluto's existence, but we can apply our knowledge of orbital mechanics and so on to determine that orbital period without having directly observed it. Observation helps, I'm not going to devalue that, but we can have evidence beyond simple eye-watching that helps us form pictures of reality. Just saying "oh yeah? You've never seen abiogenesis happening! Ha!" is a gross oversimplification.

This also ties into the latter, where we're talking about beliefs and knowledge as though certainty- and unshaking, permanent certainty at that- are the only possibilities. This is very convenient for Heywood, since it allows him to characterize atheists as believing in irrational things, but it's not the truth, or at least it's only part of it.

When I say I believe that abiogenesis happened, and I do believe that, the reason for that is that we have evidence in support of this hypothesis. We have the Miller-Yurey experiments, John Oro's work, and so on, which demonstrate that at least a part of the process can be achieved through natural means, without the need for a god. More broadly, I believe that natural means are sufficient for life to arise because we can readily demonstrate the existence of nature, whereas we've never been able to do this for any kind of supernature or intelligent design yet proposed. Heywood keeps talking about abiogenesis as though we have nothing to go on, but that's simply untrue. We have a basis from which to proceed, and so far that basis has done nothing but confirm the validity of abiogenesis as a source of life.

Do I believe that with certainty? No. I believe it with the level of confidence appropriate for the evidence currently available. I acknowledge the reality; so far, abiogenesis is the best supported hypothesis for the origins of life on earth. But I'll change that view, if new evidence comes to light which shows something different. That's the nature of a rational outlook, it changes in accordance with the evidence. It's how I can believe in abiogenesis- tentatively! - without having observed it, while still having that be a rational belief.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

So no. A world view based on shared observations is a sound one, and a world view based on feelings and proclamations from authority is a bad one. And everyone who believes in abiogenesis will tell you the same thing: show me the one who you say created these things, or give even plausible evidence-- actual observable, testable evidence, that your world view is anything more than a cultural fantasy. You might love your Granddad or whoever and be willing to take his proferred "wisdom" at face value. But we don't have to.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Theists continually attempt to patch together various beliefs into an 'atheist world view'.

That's because atheism logically entails a very specific worldview: a world without the influence of god(s). By default that means that atheists must believe that every known phenomena has a non-divine cause. I'm open to hear of a middle ground that someone actually believes and promotes. If I'm wrong then, I would like to hear something any AF member atheist believes that does not have a natural cause.

[genkaus]

That's because atheism logically entails a very specific worldview: a world without the influence of god(s). By default that means that atheists must believe that every known phenomena has a non-divine cause.

That's not specific at all.

[Neo-Scholastic]

That's because atheism logically entails a very specific worldview: a world without the influence of god(s). By default that means that atheists must believe that every known phenomena has a non-divine cause.

That's not specific at all.

In what way is that not specific? Rise to the occasion and give me one example of something you, as an atheist, believe does not have a natural cause.

[FreeTony]

By default that means that atheists must believe that every known phenomena has a non-divine cause.

How would you demonstrate a phenomena has a divine cause?

If this isn't possible, then I'm left with either a natural cause, or an "I don't know" what caused it.