(March 8, 2017 at 3:17 pm)SteveII Wrote: By redefining atheism as a "lack of belief" you mean non-theist and as such now encompass all the positions other than theism (atheists, agnostics, verificationists, babies, the impaired, my dog, and park benches). So 'atheism' ceases to have any meaning pertaining to a view of how the world is and simply becomes a psychological state.

Indeed. It trivializes the word.

---

(March 8, 2017 at 3:18 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Well...that's because atheism isn't a way of viewing the world...it's literally one response to one claim.

Deliberately excluding the divine from consideration limits how you allow yourself to see the world.

"Lack of belief" is not "deliberate"....."Chad".


Carry on!

(March 8, 2017 at 3:40 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(March 8, 2017 at 3:18 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Well...that's because atheism isn't a way of viewing the world...it's literally one response to one claim.

Deliberately excluding the divine from consideration limits how you allow yourself to see the world.

I'm not 'deliberately excluding' anything.  I'm just not believing in a single claim because I don't think it's met its burden of proof.

(March 8, 2017 at 4:06 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(March 8, 2017 at 3:40 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Deliberately excluding the divine from consideration limits how you allow yourself to see the world.

I'm not 'deliberately excluding' anything.  I'm just not believing in a single claim because I don't think it's met its burden of proof.

But why does assessing a 'burden of proof' have anything to do with it. You could have never heard any proof (nor want to) and have a belief there is not God.

(March 8, 2017 at 3:40 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(March 8, 2017 at 3:17 pm)SteveII Wrote: By redefining atheism as a "lack of belief" you mean non-theist and as such now encompass all the positions other than theism (atheists, agnostics, verificationists, babies, the impaired, my dog, and park benches). So 'atheism' ceases to have any meaning pertaining to a view of how the world is and simply becomes a psychological state.

Indeed. It trivializes the word.

---

(March 8, 2017 at 3:18 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Well...that's because atheism isn't a way of viewing the world...it's literally one response to one claim.

Deliberately excluding the divine from consideration limits how you allow yourself to see the world.

Magic
Solipsism
ESP
Extraterrestrials among us
Doppelgangers
Reincarnation
Calculus
Creative arts
Participatory government

. . . the list of things I could insert into your sentence in place of 'the divine' is virtually endless. Your point?

Some of these things can be demonstrated to be real, some not, and some (solipsism and the divine, for example) cannot be disproven. You'd probably consider me a lunatic if I was a thoroughgoing solipsist in practice, and I think you'd be right. But that position strikes me as at least as defensible as theism. You seem to think that no atheists have experience of -- for lack of a better word -- the numinous. If so, you're wrong. It's just that most of us, I suppose, recognize the feelings associated with the experience as originating from within -- a byproduct of being a sentient being with a healthy human brain. The experience itself doesn't necessarily point to anything beyond that. You make a leap that seems unnecessary. Worse, you identify it with a character in a book.

Talk about limiting one's view of the world!

(March 8, 2017 at 4:17 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(March 8, 2017 at 4:06 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: I'm not 'deliberately excluding' anything.  I'm just not believing in a single claim because I don't think it's met its burden of proof.

But why does assessing a 'burden of proof' have anything to do with it. You could have never heard any proof (nor want to) and have a belief there is not God.

Because atheism is a response to a claim, literally a-theism.  It's a response to the claim that a god(s) exist.  Any claim that makes assertions about reality has a burden of proof.  I simply don't think that the claim of theism has met this burden - ergo, I'm an a-theist.

You won't find me anywhere on this forum making the claim "There are no gods" because I don't think I'd be able to (or anyone, really) meet that claim's burden of proof.

(March 8, 2017 at 11:34 am)Harry Nevis 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, 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 2:33 pm)SteveII Wrote: 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?

I was replying Kernel (see bold above).

Unanswered questions are not the problem. Questions that will never be answered are the problem for some.

(March 8, 2017 at 3:17 pm)SteveII Wrote: By redefining atheism as a "lack of belief" you mean non-theist and as such now encompass all the positions other than theism (atheists, agnostics, verificationists, babies, the impaired, my dog, and park benches). So 'atheism' ceases to have any meaning pertaining to a view of how the world is and simply becomes a psychological state.

Yes. Atheist = not a theist. You're starting to get it now.

(March 8, 2017 at 4:23 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote:

(March 8, 2017 at 4:17 pm)SteveII Wrote: But why does assessing a 'burden of proof' have anything to do with it. You could have never heard any proof (nor want to) and have a belief there is not God.

Because atheism is a response to a claim, literally a-theism.  It's a response to the claim that a god(s) exist.  Any claim that makes assertions about reality has a burden of proof.  I simply don't think that the claim of theism has met this burden - ergo, I'm an a-theist.

You won't find me anywhere on this forum making the claim "There are no gods" because I don't think I'd be able to (or anyone, really) meet that claim's burden of proof.

But just because someone avoids saying the claim does not mean they do not believe it and continually imply the claim by their choice of words and attitudes when discussing the subject. 

Consider the difference between saying 

1. "I believe there is no gold on the moon" and 
2. "I do not believe there is gold on the moon"

If you have no opinion on the matter, then you believe 2. But the problem is that everyone here does have an opinion on the matter (because they have assessed the proof offered and found it lacking) so believes 1.

(March 8, 2017 at 4:48 pm)SteveII Wrote: Consider the difference between saying 

1. "I believe there is no gold on the moon" and 
2. "I do not believe there is gold on the moon"

If you have no opinion on the matter, then you believe 2. But the problem is that everyone here does have an opinion on the matter (because they have assessed the proof offered and found it lacking) so believes 1.

It sure is easy to disprove the existence of gold in a specific area in space. Would you say that it is equally simple to disprove the existence of any god in all space?