Belief and Knowledge

[Chas]

You can be such an ass, fr0d0. We know you're some flavor of Christian. We don't get stuck on the fact that you're a theist, we want to know more about your position than that. We're still working on getting people to understand atheists come in different flavors. I'm more than happy to defend 'my flavor' but I won't be dishonest and claim atheism is something it isn't for your convenience and satisfaction. I can count on one hand the times a theist has tried to ascertain what my position is beyond mere atheism without prompting. I'm looking forward to the day when we don't have to spend so much blasted time on the fundamentals of what an atheist is and isn't that we can actually get past that to something more interesting. Look how long Heywood has been here and he still has to have the simplest things explained to him.

I think we're saying the same thing MA. Likewise I find the Christian position severely misrepresented. The theist position, well I ascribe to that too. Haywood, as I see him posting now and recently, has a perfect understanding of what constitutes atheism. That's my point. The objections are nit picking. You're not allowing him to generalise where generalisations are warranted. I find that a dishonest diversionary tactic.

His generalizations are almost always invalid.

[The Grand Nudger]

Currently after 37 votes, more than 50% of atheists believe the unproven and un-falsifiable hypothesis that life in this universe arose via some natural process and not from design.

Whats unproven or un-falsifiable about this hypothesis, specifically?

@Frodo. What generalizations do you think are warranted, specifically?

[Mudhammam]

Nevertheless, I have committed

That's probably the biggest difference between believers and atheists. There's no value in commitment on insufficient grounds. I'm not committed to any proposition that can't be rigorously defended through ample argumentation and/or demonstration. And thus far, every theist here has proven one thing: they utterly fail at that.

[Jackalope]

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.

Not me personally, but I once had a friend who was an atheist and believed in reincarnation.

[Heywood]

I think God probably does not exist. If you call willingness to change my mind at the drop of a hat in the presence of a convincing miracle or even the right words from the right person, 'committment', I feel like you're trying to manipulate me in some way. Like slipping in a redefinition of 'lack of belief' as a 'lack of committment'. A belief is what you think is true. It doesn't require committment. I don't even think there is a choice involved, we HAVE to believe what we think is true. I don't believe God is real. I think God probably doesn't exist. I lack a belief that God is real. I lack a belief that God probably exists. I know you don't like the term, but you're never going to get us to agree to use different language as long as we think it's true that the language we're using describes our position the most conclusively and accurately. My mind has been changed before at least twice about the best defintion for atheist, through the introduction of new facts. Unless you have one of those, your choice is to suck it up and move on instead of dwelling on this sticking point, or keep going around in circles chasing your tail trying to get us to define ourselves in a way that pleases you.

You can have beliefs which contradict knowledge. There is a video in a thread around here of the Creation Museum's scientist...who is an astro physicist....who believes in a literal interpretation of Genesis while knowing it contradicts science. The man certainly has knowledge he is ignoring and choosing the believe somethings else.

We simply have no experience with lineages of life coming into existence via some natural process.....none....zippo.

I can't see any way in which this cannot be interpreted as an argument from ignorance.

Negative, I wasn't even arguing about God. I was arguing his analogy is flawed. His comparison that we know a murder happened even though we don't witness it is analogous to knowing abiogenesis happens without witnessing it simply does not follow. Why? Murder we have lots and lots and lots of first hand experience. Abiogenesis our experience or knowledge is none. We got some speculation and that's it.

---

Currently after 37 votes, more than 50% of atheists believe the unproven and un-falsifiable hypothesis that life in this universe arose via some natural process and not from design.

Whats unproven or un-falsifiable about this hypothesis, specifically?

@Frodo. What generalizations do you think are warranted, specifically?

You can always claim its a process which exists or has existed....but just hasn't been observed yet. Its not something that can be proved impossible.

---

Nevertheless, I have committed

That's probably the biggest difference between believers and atheists. There's no value in commitment on insufficient grounds. I'm not committed to any proposition that can't be rigorously defended through ample argumentation and/or demonstration. And thus far, every theist here has proven one thing: they utterly fail at that.

God probably exists
God probably does not exist.

If you are indifferent towards either of the above propositions...then yes...you lack a belief. If you are not indifferent, you have made a choice or commitment to favor one over the other. You have formulated a belief.

---

It's also simply untrue: as I pointed out, we have experimental evidence that shows that the building blocks of life can form via natural processes.

We have evidence that carbon can form in stars. Is knowledge of nuclear synthesis of carbon knowledge about abiogenesis? It is not. It is knowledge of nuclear synthesis of carbon. Is knowledge of how pre-biotic components can form knowledge of abiogenesis? It is not....it is knowledge of how pre-biotic components can form.

The rest of your post is a straw man. I am not arguing that having no knowledge of abiogenesis is a reason to believe in God. I am arguing something completely different. I am arguing that if your basis of rejecting belief in God is a lack of knowledge of God, then you should reject a belief in abiogenesis as well. Why? Because we have 0 knowledge or experience with abiogenesis.

Personally.....I think it is okay....its not dirty....its not taboo....to believe in somethings of which you have no knowledge. But if your going to criticize me for believing in something which I have no knowledge....don't get butthurt when I point out you are doing the same.

[Mudhammam]

God probably exists
God probably does not exist.

If you are indifferent towards either of the above propositions...then yes...you lack a belief. If you are not indifferent, you have made a choice or commitment to favor one over the other. You have formulated a belief.

Beliefs don't require commitment to anything but the facts. That's what distinguishes belief from faith. Faith requires commitment in spite of doubt; beliefs allow one the freedom to follow where the evidence leads.

[Chas]

I am arguing that if your basis of rejecting belief in God is a lack of knowledge of God, then you should reject a belief in abiogenesis as well. Why? Because we have 0 knowledge or experience with abiogenesis.

The argument is lack of belief due to lack of evidence of either existence or plausibility.

For abiogenesis there is both evidence of chemistry and plausible mechanisms.

It's not about knowledge - it's about evidence.

[The Grand Nudger]

You can always claim its a process which exists or has existed....but just hasn't been observed yet. Its not something that can be proved impossible.

I can claim what about what? What hasn't been observed yet, and what is something that cannot be proven (and this last one is interesting - how have you come to this conclusion- about whatever "it" is, specifically)? Are you talking about abiogenesis in the general here(you'd be wrong on both counts)...I've been assuming you had an issue with a particular explanation under that umbrella?

[Jenny A]

It's not quite that simple. Lack of belief can be simply not having thought about the matter sufficiently to form a belief, or determining after thought that there isn't enough evidence to decide the matter.

---

Do you believe that my hair is red or perhaps brown? You have no knowledge whether it is or isn't either of those colors. You don't know. Are you failing to commit to a belief that my hair is red, or are you simply saying, I don't know what color Jenny's hair is. I would say you are without knowledge or belief about my hair color. There's no lack of commitment, just a genuine lack of knowledge.

---

However, when many atheists, me included, say we lack a belief in god, what we mean is I don't believe there is a god because if there were I would expect there to be some evidence of it, but I acknowledge that a negative position can never be proven.

Jenny's hair is red.
Jenny's hair is brown.
Jenny's hair is some other color.
Jenny has no hair.

I have not committed to any of the above propositions. I have no beliefs concerning your hair. Now consider these next two propositions.

Santa Clause is a real person who owns a sled and team of flying reindeer.
Santa Clause and his sled and team of flying reindeer are artifacts of fiction.

I have committed to one of those propositions. I have a belief about Santa Clause.....that he is an artifact of fiction. Now consider these last two propositions.

God probably exists.
God probably does not exist.

I don't know if God exists. That is me making a statement about my knowledge. Nevertheless, I have committed to one of those propositions. Have you? If you have I don't think you can hide behind, "I simply lack belief in God or gods". Lack of belief is lack of commitment. Taking on the label "atheist" and participating in the atheist community certainly suggests to me some sort of commitment.

Well, in all truthfulness I think that the propositions Yahweh is god and Jesus was the son of god are fiction. I have committed due to lack of evidence where evidence ought to exist. But, I really have not committed on the subject of whether any god at all exists. There simply isn't enough evidence to commit. I see no evidence that one does, but it's far from an impossibility, just not a very likely possibility.

[Heywood]

Well, in all truthfulness I think that the propositions Yahweh is god and Jesus was the son of god are fiction. I have committed due to lack of evidence where evidence ought to exist. But, I really have not committed on the subject of whether any god at all exists. There simply isn't enough evidence to commit. I see no evidence that one does, but it's far from an impossibility, just not a very likely possibility.

Its impossible for me to know what goes on in your mind. I simply have no knowledge of it. However I have committed to a belief that people who are members of and regularly participate in discourse on an atheist internet forum would not view the following propositions indifferently

God or gods exist.
God or gods do not exist.

They would not view them indifferently like they would these propositions.

Heywood has brown hair.
Heywood has red hair.
Heywood has hair of some other color.
Heywood has no hair.

Maybe my belief is wrong.