It's difficult to nail atheism down to a cut and dried definition because what people believe doesn't always match a bill of goods.

I have to qualify my vote.

When it comes to the named gods (Allah, Yahweh, etc.) I proactively believe they don't exist. And I don't believe that a deity whose recorded deeds don't match up with science and history is unfalsifiable.

But when it comes to whether some unidentified god exists out there, I agree with Iggy.

(March 6, 2017 at 6:37 pm)Kernel Sohcahtoa Wrote: SteveII, thanks for your reply.  IMO, it's cool that we can have a discourse in such a constructive manner.

SteveII Wrote:1. No, it is not the case nor will it ever be the case that scientific knowledge can answer all our questions (not even close). Great stretches of human thinking/achievement have nothing to do with science: philosophy, mathematics, language, aesthetics, the any of social sciences, etc.

Can the same observation be made about artistic, mathematical, philosophical, and theistic knowledge (just substitute the appropriate terms for scientific/science and plug them into the post quoted above) or any form of knowledge for that matter? Perhaps a combination of various modes of thinking (not relying on any particular one) can provide a better means for answering all of humanity’s questions about reality? 

SteveII Wrote:Based on 1, I think it is clear that science and God are not two paths to the same knowledge. Science is a tool (of many) and not to be shunned, ignored, or despised by those who believe in God. Science does not have the ability to comment on God, the supernatural, or and truths we might arrive at through non-scientific methods.

Based on 1, is it valid for any particular domain of thought to make comments about matters that go beyond its domain?  In your opinion, do your beliefs give you the ability to comment on matters that are unrelated to theism? If they do, then how do you validate this?

Thanks for your time and attention, Steve II.

Every discipline can inform us of things that pertain to that discipline. My belief in God does not by itself give me intellectual license to reject truths derived from the other disciplines.

(March 6, 2017 at 3:59 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(March 6, 2017 at 3:38 pm)Nonpareil Wrote: No one says that the proposition "God does not exist" has no truth value. They say that it has an unknown truth value, as does "God exists", and that lack of belief is all that is required to be labeled an atheist.

That's all well and good except if that is your position then you have no right to say whether someone should or should not be theist, including yourself.

No.

Let us say, for the sake of argument, that "God exists" has an entirely unknown truth value. There is no evidence one way or the other.

Being a theist is still illogical and irrational.

(March 6, 2017 at 3:59 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: When someone says "I am not a theist because of insufficient evidence"  he or she is tacitly admitting that one should prefer one epistemological position over another.

Well, yes. Because "God does not exist" is the null hypothesis. Absent any evidence that God exists, you should prefer that. That's what the null hypothesis is for.

(March 6, 2017 at 3:59 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: I do not believe atheists can sufficiently justify disbelief as the better default position since (as I've argued elsewhere  A Better Default   ) our instincts, common experience and thousands of years of cross cultural reports point us in the direction of God's existence.

Instincts and cultural beliefs mean nothing if you have no actual evidence to back them up.

(March 6, 2017 at 3:59 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Actually that's kind of funny. I think I just argued that atheists have a burden of proof to show that people should have an epistemological preference for disbelief.

Yes.

It's called skepticism and the null hypothesis.

(March 6, 2017 at 7:41 pm)SteveII Wrote: Every discipline can inform us of things that pertain to that discipline. My belief in God does not by itself give me intellectual license to reject truths derived from the other disciplines.

Thanks for your reply, SteveII.  What does give you intellectual license to reject truths derived from the other disciplines?  If you are able to make such a rejection, then does theistic faith play a factor in it?

(March 7, 2017 at 12:11 pm)Kernel Sohcahtoa Wrote:

(March 6, 2017 at 7:41 pm)SteveII Wrote: Every discipline can inform us of things that pertain to that discipline. My belief in God does not by itself give me intellectual license to reject truths derived from the other disciplines.

Thanks for your reply, SteveII.  What does give you intellectual license to reject truths derived from the other disciplines?  If you are able to make such a rejection, then does theistic faith play a factor in it?

I don't reject truths from other disciplines. I might not find a particular conclusion to be a truth. For example, while many people just accept evolution as truth (defines as the theory of common decent and the mechanisms by which that happens), I don't make that leap because 1) it has not been proven and 2) my worldview gives more more possibilities than say, and atheist has. I'm not trying to start a debate on evolution, just illustrating the difference in having to believe a theory is true and not having to believe a theory is true regardless of it's actual truth value. When they prove it, I will amend my belief.

(March 3, 2017 at 3:43 am)TheAtheologian Wrote:

(March 3, 2017 at 3:37 am)Jesster Wrote: The base requirement of atheism is a lack of belief (disbelief) in a god or gods. You can stop there if you are just trying to define atheism. Atheists can also believe that there is no god if they want to take it further.

Would this be more accurate?:

Lack of a belief in any god- Atheism

Belief that there is no god- Anti-theism

or

Lack of a belief in any god- Weak/negative atheism

Belief that there is no god- Strong/positive atheism

I'm actually both.  I'm a weak atheist because I lack belief in gods.  I'm also anti-theistic because I vehemently detest religion.

---

(March 3, 2017 at 9:54 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Frozen dogshit on a stick.

That describes religion, yes.

SteveII Wrote:I don't reject truths from other disciplines. I might not find a particular conclusion to be a truth. For example, while many people just accept evolution as truth (defines as the theory of common decent and the mechanisms by which that happens), [A] I don't make that leap because 1) it has not been proven and 2) my worldview gives more more possibilities than say, and atheist has. I'm not trying to start a debate on evolution, [B] just illustrating the difference in having to believe a theory is true and not having to believe a theory is true regardless of it's actual truth value. When they prove it, I will amend my belief.

There are plenty of secular members here on AF who don't leap to belief in god, because from their perspective, like the reasons given by you in [A], it has not been proven and their worldview provides them with more possibilities than a theist. Hence, regarding [A], is such a position a valid alternative to theism?
                                        
Also, regarding [B], there have been secular members on this site who have made similar remarks about their atheism, namely that if theists prove it (god), then they will amend their beliefs? Do you think that this is reasonable?  What are your thoughts?

P.S. I had a lot of formatting issues with this post, so I apologize for any inconvenience.

(March 7, 2017 at 2:01 pm)Kernel Sohcahtoa Wrote:

(March 7, 2017 at 1:14 pm)SteveII Wrote: I don't reject truths from other disciplines.  [A] I might not find a particular conclusion to be a truth. For example, while many people just accept evolution as truth (defines as the theory of common decent and the mechanisms by which that happens), I don't make that leap because 1) it has not been proven and 2) my worldview gives more more possibilities than say, and atheist has. I'm not trying to start a debate on evolution, [b]just illustrating the difference in having to believe a theory is true and not having to believe a theory is true regardless of it's actual truth value. When they prove it, I will amend my belief.[/b]

There are plenty of secular members here on AF who don't leap to belief in god, because from their perspective, like the reasons given by you in [A], it has not been proven and their worldview provides them with more possibilities than a theist. Hence, in your opinion, is such a position a valid alternative to theism?
                                        
Also, regarding , there have been secular members on this site who have made similar remarks about their atheism, namely that if theists prove it (god), then they will amend their beliefs? Do you think that this is reasonable?  What are your thoughts?

An atheistic worldview provides more possibilities? I think they have it backwards. Naturalism is more limiting because of two things: 1) it cannot explain the existence of logic, mathematics, morality abstract objects, consciousness etc. and 2) rejects supernatural possibilities/events/causes/persons (which is a philosophical position, not a scientific one). Naturalism leaves a lot of questions unanswered, and as is often the case, relegating those question asked to "not relevant" or "meaningless". 


Regarding the topic of sources of truth we have been discussing: You may be familiar with Alvin Plantinga. He formulated the following argument that points out, not that naturalism is false, but that we cannot sensibly believe both naturalism and the scientific theory of evolution. 

Letting R be the proposition that our cognitive faculties are reliable, N the proposition that there is no such person as God or anything like Him (naturalism), and E the proposition that we and our cognitive faculties have come to be in the way proposed by the contemporary scientific theory of evolution, Plantinga formulates the argument as follows:

1. Pr (R|N&E) is low.
2. Anyone who accepts (believes) N&E and sees that Pr (R|N&E) is low has a defeater for R.
3. Anyone who has a defeater for R has a defeater for any other belief he thinks he has, including N&E itself.
4. If one who accepts N&E thereby acquires a defeater for N&E, N&E is self-defeating and can’t rationally be accepted.
5. Therefore, N&E can’t rationally be accepted.

Pasted from Book Review: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/where-the...naturalism

(March 7, 2017 at 2:33 pm)SteveII Wrote: Naturalism is more limiting because of two things: 1) it cannot explain the existence of logic, mathematics, morality abstract objects, consciousness etc.

Flatly wrong.

(March 7, 2017 at 2:33 pm)SteveII Wrote: 2) rejects supernatural possibilities/events/causes/persons (which is a philosophical position, not a scientific one).

Also wrong.

Supernatural events do not happen. This is a scientific conclusion.

(March 7, 2017 at 2:33 pm)SteveII Wrote: Regarding the topic of sources of truth we have been discussing: You may be familiar with Alvin Plantinga. He formulated the following argument that points out, not that naturalism is false, but that we cannot sensibly believe both naturalism and the scientific theory of evolution. 

Letting R be the proposition that our cognitive faculties are reliable, N the proposition that there is no such person as God or anything like Him (naturalism), and E the proposition that we and our cognitive faculties have come to be in the way proposed by the contemporary scientific theory of evolution, Plantinga formulates the argument as follows:

1. Pr (R|N&E) is low.

Unjustified, irrelevant anyway.

(March 7, 2017 at 2:33 pm)SteveII Wrote: 2. Anyone who accepts (believes) N&E and sees that Pr (R|N&E) is low has a defeater for R.

Non sequitur.

Not particularly convincing.

(March 6, 2017 at 12:59 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(March 6, 2017 at 12:46 pm)mlmooney89 Wrote: I'm sorry but that doesn't make any sense to me. It sounds like you are saying you don't know if gods really exist but then turn around and say they don't. I'm not criticizing I just don't understand. To me it's very black and white- either gods exists or they don't. I say they don't so I'm an atheist. I have no belief in them and when reworded I lack a belief in them.

It's a word game about burden of proof. Atheist think that if it's simply a "lack of belief", they don't shoulder any intellectual burden of proof for their belief. 

With that logic, babies are atheists because they "lack a belief". The fact is, all atheists have an opinion on whether any god exists or not.

Babies ARE atheists.  Are you saying we're born with a belief in god?  If I lack a belief, how can I shoulder any intellectual burden about it?

---

(March 7, 2017 at 2:33 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(March 7, 2017 at 2:01 pm)Kernel Sohcahtoa Wrote: There are plenty of secular members here on AF who don't leap to belief in god, because from their perspective, like the reasons given by you in [A], it has not been proven and their worldview provides them with more possibilities than a theist. Hence, in your opinion, is such a position a valid alternative to theism?
                                        
Also, regarding , there have been secular members on this site who have made similar remarks about their atheism, namely that if theists prove it (god), then they will amend their beliefs? Do you think that this is reasonable?  What are your thoughts?

An atheistic worldview provides more possibilities? I think they have it backwards. Naturalism is more limiting because of two things: 1) it cannot explain the existence of logic, mathematics, morality abstract objects, consciousness etc. and 2) rejects supernatural possibilities/events/causes/persons (which is a philosophical position, not a scientific one). Naturalism leaves a lot of questions unanswered, and as is often the case, relegating those question asked to "not relevant" or "meaningless".

Why are the number of possiblilities a factor in deciding what is true?

Why are unanswered questions a problem?