Is Lack of Belief the Best You Can Do?

[Felasco]

[quote pid='1231011' dateline='1458757119']
Yes, it may be true that reason may not work in all of reality. I'm  not sure how that would happen, but for arguments sake, I'll go with it. 

That still does not answer the question, what other, better method do we have?
[/quote]

I'm not selling anything other than reason.  We're on the same page in that regard.  So let's reason together.

1) There is no proof that holy books are qualified to make credible statements about the fundamental nature of all reality.  So until such proof is provided, we decline to believe in such an ability. 

2) There is no proof that human reason is qualified to make credible statements about the fundamental nature of all reality.  So until such proof is provided, we decline to believe in such an ability. 

See?  This is very simple reasoning.  No fancy anything required.  All that's needed is to apply a sensible challenge in an even handed manner to all authorities.  That is, all that's needed is reason.  Not ideology.  Reason.  

So let's keep reasoning.  What's next?

Some people may be happy to stop here.  They will say, if we can't know anything about gods one way or the other, let's focus on something we can know something about.  There's nothing wrong with such a decision of course.  Let's call these folks agnostics.

Other people will want to keep on going.   Here's how we might do that.  Embrace the fact of our ignorance.  Stop chasing fantasy knowings of various theist or atheist flavors, and mine what we actually do have, our ignorance.  Atheists are always talking about facing reality etc, so this should not be such an unfamiliar concept.

I call this the fundamentalist agnostic position, for lack of a better phrase.  The fundamentalist agnostic doesn't just reject theism or atheism.   They reject the point of agreement that theism and atheism both share, the notion that the goal of the inquiry should be to establish a knowing.

The fundamentalist agnostic observes that there is no evidence that a knowing is available by any means.  Thus, the endless search for a knowing by all parties to the theist/atheist debate is seen to be irrational.

What is rational is to make the best possible use of what we actually have in abundance on this subject, ignorance.  This is not as odd as it may at first seem.

What makes childhood such a special time of life?  Ignorance.

What makes romance such a special experience?  Ignorance.

Ignorance is actually a very important asset to human life.  A lot of what we cherish arises from it.  One needs only reason to see it.

[ignoramus]

I'm not sure what the actual position is here.
Is he/she a believer simply as someone who has no choice because logic and reason forces them to adopt that position?

Bullshit. It's just anther indoctrinated mind doing what is neccesary to validate their position.
Sorry. Nothing new here. Slightly different angle, that's all.

[LadyForCamus]

I'm not sure what the actual position is here.
Is he/she a believer simply as someone who has no choice because logic and reason forces them to adopt that position?

Bullshit. It's just anther indoctrinated mind doing what is neccesary to validate their position.
Sorry. Nothing new here. Slightly different angle, that's all.

Yeah, this is exactly what bothers me. I think she is a Christian, but instead of showing up and revealing herself as such, she argues ad nauseam for what really is only a prerequisite for considering any monotheistic God. Even if she were to convince an atheist to ponder if there is "something else out there," she is still faced with the monumental task of convincing that atheist the God of the bible is real, and that he is the only one. It's shady. And not effective. P.s.: I'm a bit drunk, so if this post is offensive or incoherent, I apologize in advance!

[Simon Moon]

I'm not selling anything other than reason.  We're on the same page in that regard.  So let's reason together.

1) There is no proof that holy books are qualified to make credible statements about the fundamental nature of all reality.  So until such proof is provided, we decline to believe in such an ability. 

2) There is no proof that human reason is qualified to make credible statements about the fundamental nature of all reality.  So until such proof is provided, we decline to believe in such an ability.

Sorry, but if you are putting the credibility of ancient texts on the same footing as reason (evidence and sound/valid logic), we may not have anything left to talk about.

Not to mention that you are misusing the word "proof". "Evidence" is the correct word to use in the context. And no, I'm not being pedantic, terms and definitions matter. 

See?  This is very simple reasoning.  No fancy anything required.  All that's needed is to apply a sensible challenge in an even handed manner to all authorities.  That is, all that's needed is reason.  Not ideology.  Reason.  

So, do you also apply this "even handed manner" with regards to unicorns and garden fairies?

Again, the position that an even handed manner should be applied to ancient texts and their supernatural claims, to the efficacy of reason, is just plain silly.

So let's keep reasoning.  What's next?

Some people may be happy to stop here.  They will say, if we can't know anything about gods one way or the other, let's focus on something we can know something about.  There's nothing wrong with such a decision of course.  Let's call these folks agnostics.

Other people will want to keep on going.   Here's how we might do that.  Embrace the fact of our ignorance.  Stop chasing fantasy knowings of various theist or atheist flavors, and mine what we actually do have, our ignorance.  Atheists are always talking about facing reality etc, so this should not be such an unfamiliar concept.

But we can know some things about gods. Their complete invisibility, seems to make them indistinguishable from being nonexistent.

I admit, that I am not absolutely certain, that  gods do not exist.

I just see no reason to believe they do.

I call this the fundamentalist agnostic position, for lack of a better phrase.  The fundamentalist agnostic doesn't just reject theism or atheism.   They reject the point of agreement that theism and atheism both share, the notion that the goal of the inquiry should be to establish a knowing.

The fundamentalist agnostic observes that there is no evidence that a knowing is available by any means.  Thus, the endless search for a knowing by all parties to the theist/atheist debate  is seen to be irrational.

What is rational is to make the best possible use of what we actually have in abundance on this subject, ignorance.  This is not as odd as it may at first seem.

First of all, atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive positions.

Basically, all you are doing is describing a form of solipsism.  No need to make up new terms to describe yourself.


So, I ask again. Do you currently accept the premise, that at least one god exists, to be true?

I'm not asking for knowledge statements, only what you believe.

[Thumpalumpacus]

[Emphasis added -- Thump]

This is a subtle strawman.  No one has said that things cannot appear contradictory. Why are you asserting that they assume that?

Please re-read the post you are quoting, and the post I was responding to, thanks.

You seem to not understand the difference between appearance and attribute.

That's okay, though. If it helps you sleep better to think you've vanquished an argument that hasn't been posited, good for you.

After all, sleeping well is important.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Except that my post had nothing to do with religious believers.  I was asking atheists to prove the qualifications of their own chosen authority, or tool if you prefer.

Despite this poster's post, I did not write these words.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Ignorance is actually a very important asset to human life.  A lot of what we cherish arises from it.  One needs only reason to see it.

Then like a fundamentalist Christian or evangelical atheist, enjoy for yourself, and quit yer goddamned preaching. If your truth was so evident it wouldn't need you to speak it.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The qualifications are, it works.

EVERY advancement ever made is a result of reason. 

Human lifespan has more than doubled in the last 100 years, airflight, modern medicine, computers, etc, etc, etc... All because of reason.

Atheism is not a dogmatic position. It is a provisional one. 

My atheism is contingent on the current and continuing lack of demonstrable evidence, and valid and sound logic to support the claim that gods (or supernatural, for that matter) exist.  

The methods I use to come the the conclusion that the belief in gods is unjustified are: evidence, reason, logic, critical thinking. If you can show me how these methods/tools fail, or I am misusing them, I am all ears.

I'm not claiming to know, with absolute certainty, that a god does not exist.

Those are all the same things on which I base my belief that God does in fact exist.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Ms. Camus, the concepts around the "God of the Philosophers" are extremely well defined, as early as Plotinus, and very coherent. There simply is no support for the notion that the God of Classical Monotheism is ill-defined. Granted, many believers are a bit fuzzy on the specifics so I can see how it may appear to you.

[Felasco]

Sorry, but if you are putting the credibility of ancient texts on the same footing as reason (evidence and sound/valid logic), we may not have anything left to talk about.

That's ok with me, thanks for the chat.