Is Lack of Belief the Best You Can Do?

[Neo-Scholastic]

"Not sufficient" for what purpose?

Not a sufficient response to the proposition of whether or not god(s) exist.

[downbeatplumb]

"Not sufficient" for what purpose?

Not a sufficient response to the proposition of whether or not god(s) exist.

Why not?

[The Grand Nudger]

"Not sufficient" for what purpose?

Not a sufficient response to the proposition of whether or not god(s) exist.

Unsurprising, since it's not a statement on the existence of a god, but a persons status of belief........is there some further requirement of the statement?

[robvalue]

It's not sufficient to Chad, apparently. Luckily we don't have to run our beliefs, or lack of, past him first.

I don't know how much clearer I can make it. If you aren't yet convinced a defendant is guilty, that does not mean you necessarily believe he is innocent; and vice versa. There's a third state in which judgement is being withheld. Just announcing this to be insufficient doesn't stop it being the case.

And of course, Chad doesn't just believe in this abstract faceless science proof thing, he believes a whole lot more than that. But he's smart enough not to try and argue for it, just like WLC.

If that's all God was to people, an invisible mental pacifier, religion wouldn't be a problem. Well, religion probably wouldn't exist.

My judgement is withheld on generic "God", which could just be a computer programmer. But I find Yahweh and his other cartoon buddies to be guilty of being very likely imaginary.

[Whateverist]

I think that god belief, translated for the modern world, might just be one of the keys to a good life. But that bloated conception Christians haul around doesn't do it for me. Find a home for your God in the natural world or go home. Supernatural is just superstition spelled funny. No one can or should take anything serious which is super-anything .. except in a DC comic.

[Time Traveler]

God is a hypothesis, a model which purports to answer many questions (the birth of the universe, the origins of life, the purpose of existence, human morality, etc.) Treated scientifically, this god hypothesis would make testable, falsifiable predictions, which might lead to a greater understanding of reality. These tests would be weighed against null and alternative hypotheses, the results scrutinized from various perspectives, and, if warranted, new tests would be devised, hypotheses modified or discarded, etc.

But sadly, this is not the case.

Theists don’t follow objective evidence, altering their beliefs based upon empirical data; rather, theists fixate upon predetermined, unshakable, untestable conclusions. They scream, “scientism!” anytime someone suggests their hypothesis be impartially scrutinized or tested. And while the existence or non-existence of a deity is binary, the conviction of our beliefs in any such being is often more probabilistic, based upon an individual’s subjective reasons for drawing the conclusions that they do. It is for this reason that many atheists express a “lack of belief” in any god hypothesis (and there have been thousands of such divine assertions across the ages) because, should the empirical evidence ever point to an actual deity really existing, these atheists would indeed alter their worldview to adjust to the new data. Therefore, “lack of belief” becomes shorthand for, “I currently find no compelling empirical evidence to support any particular god hypothesis, but I’m open to new data and willing to adjust my beliefs accordingly.” Until such convincing new evidence is brought to light, I, like many others, will continue to feel justified expressing our “lack of belief.”

[The Inquisition]

I believe a god like John Frum can exist.

Pretty skeptical of other ones though.

[robvalue]

I'm expecting the next move to be that those who are withholding judgement aren't atheists, they're "just agnostics". Which is wrong. If they are not yet convinced, they lack belief. They are weak agnostic atheists. (Weak being informal for not holding a positive contrary belief.) They also lack belief that there is no God. As I said, that is the case for me, regarding a generic intelligent creator. But if you want to call them "just agnostics", be my guest. It doesn't change the actual position.

Of course, it's often assumed that the creator of our reality is the final step. There's no reason this should be the case. Our "God" could be some muggins in another reality; and that reality may be the "final" one, or maybe it also has/had a parent reality. I don't know what the obsession is with there being exactly 1 level above our reality, no more, no less. And the continued use of the word "God" carries a lot of baggage, implying some sort of magic mystical thing. Again, there is no reason it has to be.

I'd respect Chad if he backed down here and admitted that in fact withholding judgement when you feel the evidence is inconclusive both for and against, is a respectable position for any claim.

[robvalue]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcNdweUzvIw

[Simon Moon]

I'm expecting the next move to be that those who are withholding judgement aren't atheists, they're "just agnostics". Which is wrong. If they are not yet convinced, they lack belief. They are weak agnostic atheists. (Weak being informal for not holding a positive contrary belief.) They also lack belief that there is no God. As I said, that is the case for me, regarding a generic intelligent creator. But if you want to call them "just agnostics", be my guest. It doesn't change the actual position.

Exactly.

Agnosticism is not some sort of happy middle ground between theism and atheism.

By itself, it is not a complete descriptor of one's position on the god claim. It only addresses knowledge, not belief. 

If you ask someone if they believe in a god, and they answer, "I am an agnostic", they are not actually answering the question.

Belief is a binary mental state. Either one believes a premise to be true, or they don't. Even if they say they do not know, that is a mental state of not accepting the premise to be true.

[/quote]